\, 


► 


SERMONS, 

CM    THE  .         ' 

MODE     AND     SUBJECTS 

O   F 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

on      AN      ATTEMPT    TO     SHEW 

THAT  POURING  OR  SPRINKLING^ 

is    A    SCktPTURAL    M    O    D    Ej 

And  the  INFANTS  of  believsrs  are  proper  SUBJECTS 
Of  the  BAPTISM  inftitutcd  by  CHRIST^ 

WITH  AN   KXAMINATIdN  of 
VARIOUS    OBJECTIONS 

Particularly   those   contaii^ed   in  a  course   of   anonymous 
Letters  to  Bishop  Hoadly. 

mm.  III'  i«    !       «  II '  11       I'l      I  III  II  I     »j— » 

BY    JOSEPH    L  A  T  H  R  O  F,   D.  D. 

Paftor  of  the  firft  Church  in  Weft-Springfield. 


TO    WHICH    IS    ADDED, 

anAPPENDIX, 

Containing  the  history  of  the  origi*  of  the  AnaeapTist^^ 
IN  FOUR  Letters, 

BY     NATHAN     P  E  R  K  I  N  S,    A.  M. 

Paftor  of  a  Church  in  Haiiford. 


PPvINTED  AT  BOSTOh\ 

BY  PETER  EDES  for  I.  THOMAS  and  E.  T.  ANDREW?, 

Sold  at  their  Book.llof«,  No.  45,  Newhury- Street,  and  by  faid   Thornnu  fa 

Worcrjier. 

MPCCX'CJH. 


i 


SERMONS,  &c. 

E  P  H  E  S  I  A  N  S    IV.  5. 

ONE    BAPTISM. 
DISCOURSE    I. 

To  perfaadc  the  Ephefians  to  keep  the  unity  of  the Tpirit  in  the 
bond  of  peace,  the  Apoftle  urges  this,  among  other  argumentt, 
that  they  had  received  cne  Baptifm.  If  this  ene  Baptlfm  was  defigned 
to  be  a  bond  of  peace  and  unity  among  chriflians,  honr  unhappy  it  is, 
that  it  (hould  become  an  occafion  of  divifion  and  feparation  ?  Sons 
will  fay,  *  Ic  is  not  one  baptifm,  but  diffeunt  baptifms  that  caufe  divi- 
fions.'  It  is  true,  baptifm  is  adminiftered  in  different  modes,  and 
to  dWexttitfuhjeas  ;  but  Hill,  I  hope,  it  will  appear  to  be  one  baptifm  ; 
9nd  if  fo,  then  this  difference  is  no  judreafon  for  difunion. 

You  are  fenfible,  my  brethren,  that  I  have  not  been  wont  to  brine 
controverfies  into  the  pulpit.  I  have  purpcfely  avoided  the  controverfy 
ccncerning  baptifm  in  years  part,  and  (hould  have  done  fo  llill,  had  it 
rot  been  lately  revived  among  you. — It  is  not  any  prejudice  againft 
our  brethren  who  differ  from  us,  but  a  regard  to  your  prefent  cir- 
cumftances,  and  to  the  dcfire  of  rnany  among  you,  that  now  induces 
me  to  enter  upon  it :  and  I  hope  to  handle  it  in  fuch  a  manner,  as,  at 
leaft,  not  to  offend,  if  1  fliould  jiot  convince.  I  (hall  not  call  in  quef. 
tion  the  validity  of  the  baptifm  of  our  brethren  :  I  only  aim  to  vin» 
dicate  our  oivn.  And  furely  when  we  are  charged  with  having  effen- 
tially  changed  a  divine  inftitution— -when  we  are  reprefented  as  being 
in  an  unbaptized  lUte— when  we  are  treated  as  unfit  for  ehriHian  com* 
inunian,  we  have  a  right  to  plead  in  ouf  defeace. 

Thcrf 


[     4     ] 

There  if  X  Ittc  pamphle',  which  <Biny  of  yen  have  jtz^,  wfiiien 
by  vfc'ay  of  Letters  \^  Bijhcp  K:ad!y,  rhe  rfuiHor  of  u-hlch  labours  to 
difp''o<^  the  validity  bo>lh  of  yyr;;/i///rg-,  md  of  infant  Lapti/m^  and 
l/cau  them  boih  with  grcac  coiuempt. — I  fHaM  pay  »  particular  ac- 
teAiijQ  to  ihii  piec,  and  take  notice  of  every  thing  thiit  i)  maictrial 
in  it. 

The  quellions  before  us  arc  t*o  ;  ^\^t'>.h(^T /pr inkling  is  a  fcriptural 
mode  ;  aod  whether  injanti  crc  proper  fubjefts  of  bapii(xii  ?  Thcfc 
qaeftions  have  *o  nectfTary  ^er^n^\ion  with  each  other.  But  as  the 
validity  of o«^r  bafptifm  is  din^d  oh  account  of  the  mtdt  io  which  it 
was  adminiftcred,  as  well  as  of  the  age  at  which  we  received  it,  I  fmll 
diHinftiy  confider  both  tjucftiorj  i  and  (hall  begia  with  the  forpicr. 


iflnarT-y.1 


PART      I. 

WE   will  firft  enquire.  What  is  the  true  fcripiural  mod*  of  Bap- 
tifoi  ? 
There  axe  two  ways,  in  which  this  ordinance  is  adminiftercd  ;   one 
j$  h/MjerfiJa,    or  plunging   the  whole   body   into  water  :  ^I'he  other   ii 
affiiftan,   which  is  pouriDg  or  fprinkling  water  upon  the  perfon.— -Wj^ 
do  not  deny  ihe 'valiJuj  of  imcnerfion  ;   we  ooly  deny  the  nt:ejfity  of 
it:  But  cur  brethren    (^t  leall  many  of  them)    deny    the   validity    of 
ij'.ijlzn,   and  reprefcnt  it  a6  no  baptifno,  to  whomfoever  adminiilcrcd. 
It  is  therefc-.e  of  forne  injportaace  that  wc  enquire,  whether  there  be 
not  fuchcvidei>ce,  that  i>jj-'fion  is  af:riptural  mode,  as  may  judify  cur 
Lfcof  it,  an^l  filief,^  iHofc  who  have  received  baptifm  in  this  manner. 
I  fliall  ^fA  examirij  the  import  of  the  Gr/;f  word  ufed  for  baptifm — 
then  conf:dcr  the  ufcsr  of  baptifm  and  the  allufion;  of  fcripture  to  thefe 
ufcj — next  enquire,   what  was  the  apofiolic  praflice— and  laftly  take 
fjmc  notice  of  the  ufagc  of  the  church  after  the  ajcftolic  age. 

I.  V/<  will  exauiinc  the  i.-nport  of  the  word  BxtTj^w,  which  is  the 
i/uji,  if  not  the  oil)'  word  by  wl.iLh  the  writers  of  the  N«w  Tellament 
eiprefi  the  chriflian  orujnancr  of  baptifm. 

Iti»  agreed,  thai  the  word  B;xt1»^w  fignifics  toi^fijhhy  the  applies* 
tion  of  water  :  Eut  then.  Low  the  water  i'  to  be  applied,  whether  by 
plunging  the  fubjewti  i/i/j  water,  or  by  pouring  or  fprinUling  water 
uptn  th*  fubjcd.  i$  the  qjellion.  This  will  bell  be  determined  by  con- 
iieJcring,  bow  the  word  is  ufcd  upon  ccrn.'non  occafions. 

1  be 


[  i  J 

The  author  of  the  Letters  to  Biihop  Hoadl^'  tells  us  ,  *  That  the 
writers  of  ihe  New  Teftamcnt  borrowed  their  phrafes  from  the  Greek; 
tranflaiion  of  the  Old  Teftamcnt,  called  the  Ssptuagint,*  He  refers 
us  to  this,  for  thefenfe  of  the  words,  which  they  have  ufed  for  baptifm. 
He  allows  rhat  *  B<X7rIi^w  is  the  offspring  o/BaTrlw  ;*  and  confcquen-l/ 
may  be  taken  in  the  famx:  fenfe.  Zealous  as  he  is  for  immerfion,  he 
is  conftrained  to  acknowledge,  that  *  BsnPiu  is  never  ufed  in  the  Sfp- 
tuagint  for  the  rPte  ofwafiiing  a  perfon's  w^o/V  body  :'  But,  on  the 
contrary,  is  fometimes  ufed  for  wetting  the  body  h'j  fprinkling  ;  as  in 
pan.  4.  33.  and  chap.  5.  i\.  where  Ncbuchaeine^:car\  body  is  faid  to 
be  ivtt  'With  the  de^w  of  bewvtn.     Ndw  he  fays,  *  We  all  know,  that  a 

*  pcrfon  is  wet  with  dew,  not  by  immerfion  into  it,  but  by  its  di.'HIla- 
'  tion  in  gentle  drops  ;  wc  are  fprinkled  with  it.'  And  i(  BaTrju  is 
jrever  ufed  for  plunging  the  whole  body,  but  fometimes  for  fprinkling 
it,  probably  Bfii7r1i^w,  *  its  offipring,'  is  generally  ufed  in  the  fame 
fenfe.     Accordingly  this  author  concedes  that  *  the  word    BccttJi^w,  h 

*  never  hut  ones  ufed,  in  thofe  very  numerous  places  of  the  Old  Tefta- 
'  ment,  where  bi^^king  the  pcrfon  is  commanded.*  The  one  inftance 
he  mentions  is  in  2  King.  5.  14.  where  Naaman  is  faid  to  have  dipped 
(or  baptized)  himfelf/S'ven  times  in  Jordan,  for  the  cure  of  his  leprofy. 
But  this  6ne  inllance,  at  beft,  is  but  a  doubtful  one  ;  for  the  law  pre- 
scribed that  the  leper  fhould  he  fprinkled  fcven  times  for  his  clpanfmg, 
Ths  Prophet  fays,  nv!jjh  fe'vcn  times  and  thou  Jl^ alt  h(  clean.  If  the 
Prophet  had  any  refpsfl  to  the  law,  as  it  feems  he  had,  by  his  enjoin- 
ing him  to  wa(h_/fv^^  times,  then  by  ivafiing  he  mci'-^ni/prir.kliKg  ;  fj 
that  this  example  will  by  no  means  prove,  that  the  word  Bjs^'Ii^w^ 
{ignites  to  plunge.  We  have  tlicn  »<?  inOancc  of  B:J:7rKxi^  and  but  one 
(and  that  a  very  doubtful  irJancc)  of  E^.Trlt^co,  uled  in  all  the  Old 
Teftament  for  immerfion  or  bathing  the  body  :  But  fome  inftances  of 
tl?  former's  being  ufed  for  fprinkling.  Thus  the  matter  Hands  ac- 
cording to  the  conceffions  of  this  writct. 

Let  us  nqw  confult  the  New  Teftamcnt.     There  we  fhall  find  clear 
^nd  dircdcvidencs,  that  the    word  Ba7r1i^<^,  ugnifies  \o  piur  or  j'frin- 


le. 


It  is  faid,  in  the  beginning  of  the  yth  chap,  of  Mark,  That  tie 
Fhari/ees,  ivhen  they  fiviv  fome  of  t he  di/ci pies  ent  bread  ttsitb  def  lid  (ibaf 
is  to  fay,  K'fnh  unwajhen)  hands,  found fauh  ;  fur  the  Pharifecs  and  all 
the  Jezvs,  e^to'pt  tf/ey  wafh  their  hand?  «//.  *tf/  ''<?/•  y^rd  ivhen  tley 
come  f-om  the  market,    except   they    wa(h,    {}^'\  ^^^    paTrV^owvlaj,  tx- 

€epi  ihey  are  l.sptized J   ih'y  tat  not*      What   in    ifce  lurmer  clank,   ij 

''    ■  .....  ^^^^^^ 


C   «   ] 

•illcd  'U30jh'ni  the  bantis,  is  here  called  hting  hgpiiztd.  The  ufual 
Bianncr  of  walhlng  hancii  among  the  y^i*-'-'.   we  learn  from  2  Kings  3. 

I  I.  where  it  is  faii,  EHjha  poured  leater  on  the  hards  cf  Elijah.  Here 
then  you  ffe.  perfons  arc  (aid  to  be  baptized^  when  only  a  part  of  the 
hody  is  wafhed  by  xht  pouring  on  cf  water.  It  is  added,  Many  other 
thin^i  there  are,  nxhuh  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  iL-aJhingt 
((3aTl»(r,wou>,  baptifms)  cf  brazen  ifjfels  and  fables,  or  beds,  i.  e.  the 
tratson  which  they  ufcd  to  recline  at  meals,  which  were  fo  large,  that 
ihey  could  not  be  warticd  only  by  pouring  water  on  thera. 

Itiifaid,  Luk.  11.  37-  A  certain  Pharifee  ajhedji/us  to  dine  luith 
him.  And  he  ivtnt  in  and  fat  dc-jjn  to  meat.  And  rjihen  the  Phari/ee 
fa'-jj  it,  he  mar-uelledt  that  he  had  not  Jirjl  <wajhed  bifcre  dinner  :  Not 
wafhed  his  'vchtle  body,  but  only  his  hands,  accorcTing  to  the  Jeivip 
cuftom  mentioned  in  the  before  cited  palTige  in  Mark.  And  this  is 
cxprcll'cd  by  the  lame  word,  frhich  is  ulVd  \ot  baptizing.  He  marvel- 
ltd  that  he  had  not  been  baptized  £ca7rIiT9)i,   before  dinr.er. 

The  Jews,  by  divine  appointment,  obferved  divers  kinds  of  purifi- 
cations,  iLe  greater  part  of  which  vttrc  fprinklmgs.  And  thcl'e  are 
cxprefsly  called  baptifms.  The  Apodle,  in  the  Qih  chap:  10  Heb.  lorh 
vcrj>,  (peaking  of  the  Jc^'ifij  ritual,  fays.  It  flood  only  in  meats  and 
drinks  and  divers  luajhifigs.  (^loc^opoig  (3a7r1i(r//0K,  divers  ba/- 
ttj'ns  )  i>y  ibcfe  divers  baptifms,  he  plainly  means  the  various  cere- 
monies cfy/Tz/ri-//;;^  ;  for  lb  he  explains  ihcm  in  the  fj'lowing  v-rfes. 
Titf  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ajhes  of  an  heifer  fprinkiing  the 
uncUan,fanSlif^th  to  tin  purifying  of  the  fejh.  Mofes  took  the  blood  of 
rnlves  and  gcafs  ^JL'ith  r^a'tr-^ind  fpriokled  the  book  and  ail  the  people. 
JJ^  ipnnii\c\^  ld-eiv'ji(  vjifh  blood  both  the  tabernacle  and  all  the  vrffils  of 
ihemintjUy.  And a'.'ncf  .ill  tlu»gs  are,  by  tie  lanv,  purged  iv^th  blood, 
j.  e.  wiih  the /j.rinkli/'g  of  blood.  Now  as  the  Apollle  fpeaks  cf  di- 
vers hupirjms,  and  then  immediately  il'.uilrates  them  by  divers  Jprink- 
liift,  and  tr.eniions  no  other  purifications,  but  fprinklings,  as  inllanc- 
c»  of  ihrO  divprs  baptifms,  it  ii  evident,  that,  if  the  facred  writer  un- 
(Jeidotxl  Crerk,  fprinkiing  is  brtpiifm. 

And  finit  the  word,  whcrev*  r  it  is  ufed  in  fcripture  for  anything 
heftdr*  the  chrillian  ordinance,  p-ainl,  fignifies  pouring  or  fprinkiing, 
except  in  «hc  z/'/^/*' inftance  cf  .V/»jmaa's  dipping  himfclf  in  Jordan, 
%hi<h  at  moll  i»  p  vc-y  d)ubi(ul  cne,  we  muU  naiura  ly  fupp.'(c.  it  is 
•»>«!  ia  the  faqBe  fcnfc,  when  it  is  applied  10  the  chrillian  ordinance. 
Thi»  conciotioii  way  huve  the  more  wei/rht,  becanfc  it  is  deduced  from 

II  t  crcriljon)  of  a  criiical  writer  no  the  other  lide  of  the  queftion. 
Tl'cr.'  i>  anotUcr  Greek  word.  Ayjy,  fuppol'ed  to  be  fomciimes  ufed 

f  f  S....M  n  . .,«  ,v   ich  ihc  guvnor  ol  the  Itctcrs  lays  mjrc  weight  ;    for, 

'  This 


[     7     ] 

'»  This,  he  tells  us  is  almoft  the  conflant  word  of  the  Septuagintt  JQ 
•  ihofe  very  numerous  places  where  bathing,  cr  walhing  ihe  -whole  body^ 
'  is  commandedr' 

This  word  is  indeed  frcquenily  ufed  for  walhing  the  body  ;  fomctimes 
for  walhing  ihe  *whole  body  ;  And  if  this  were  the  conllant  and  onLj 
word  for  baptifm  in  the  New  Tcilament,  here  would  be  a  plaufible 
argument  for  wafhing  the  whole  body  in  baptifm. — But  it  fhould  be 
obferved,  that  this  word  is  very  feldom,  if  ever  ufed  for  baptifm.  The 
author  of  the  letters  has  cited  ^hoMi  Jlxty  paffages  in  the  New  Ttfla- 
menr,  as  fpeakingof  baptifm  :  Among  all  thefc,  there  are  but  four 
where  this  word  is  ufed.  It  is  not  certali;i,^hat  baptifm  is  the  thing; 
Sntcnded  in  theft  :  But  if  it  ij,  yet  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from 
them  in  favour  of  immerilon  ;  but  perhaps  the  contrary.  Let  us  confii* 
cr  them. 

One  is  in  Heb.  lO.  23.  Let  us  ^ra^zo  near^  hai'in^  our  body  fjjajh- 
ed,  (^XriXovfxBuoi  <rwjwa,  being  waftied  in  the  body)  nvith  pure  I'.'a* 
ter.  Now  a  perfon  is  walhed  in  his  body,  though  water  be  poured 
only  on  a  part  of  it.  Thus  when  the  woman  poured  ointment  on  Chrid'i 
head,  (he  is  faid  to  have  anointed  his  ^<7^.  And  this  walhing  is,  in 
the  preceding  claufe,  cxpreKed  by J'pri filling.  Ha'ving  our  hearts  ipnnk,-' 
led  /rem  an  evil  confcience,  and  our  body  walhed  luith  pure  ivater. 

Another  paflage  is  in  Titus  3.5.  He  hath  faved  us  {^ioc  AcJJpsi) 
by  the  ^wafhing  of  regeneration ^  and  reneiving  of  the  Holy  Ghofy  nuhich 
he  hath  Jhed,  or  poured  <?«  us. — Now  if  baptifm  is  here  intended  by 
the  "juajhing  of  regenerationy  this  text  affords  a  plain  argument  for 
affufion  or  pouring  in  baptifm  :  For  this  wafhing  denotes  the  rene-xing 
tfthe  holy  Ghojf,  which  is  poured  on  us  ;  and  therefore,  that  there  may 
be  fomc  refemblance  between  the  fign  and  the  thing  fignified,  bap- 
tifm Ihould  be  performed  hy  pouring.  The  p]nr&(e  of  the  peurirg  cf 
thefpirit  is  an  allufion  to  the  pouring  of  ivater  in  baptifm. 

A  third  paflage  is  in  Eph.  5.  26.  That  be  might  fanQify  it  (the 
church)  ha'ving  clean  fed  it  'with  the  luafjing  of  luater  by  the  r.vord.  Now 
af  baptifm  be  here  intended  by  ivajhing,  then  the  church  is  faid  to  be 
fanftified  and  cleanfed  by  the  baptifmal  wafhing  :  But  how  this  waAi- 
ing  is  performed,  whether  by  fprinkling  or  plunging,  is  Hill  the  quef- 
tion.  The  Apoftle  fays,*  SprinkUng-^fanSifeth  to  the  purifying  of  the 
fiep.  If  then  we  will  allow  the  Apoftle  to  interpret  his  own  phrafef, 
it  \%  fprinkling  that  fanftifies  and  cleanfes  the  flcfh,  and  confequentiv 
is  the  nuajhing  intended,  when  the  church  is  faid  to  be  famSlifed  and 
cleanfed  by  the  njoafhing  of  nuater.  In  the  51ft  Pfal.  2d  stt{t,  the 
Pfalmiil  praySf  Wajh  me  thoroughly  from  mine  iniquity  and  cleanft  mrfron 

r.n. 

•  Hcb.  ,.  ,j. 


[     8     ] 

jf«.  He  adis  vir.  7.  P^r^e  me,  (in  the  Qm\  It  \%  fprinkU  mej  ttfj 
IJhuU  h  clear/tJ.  What  in  ihc  2d  ver.  is  called  'v^ajbiiig  thoroughly,  i« 
in  ihc  jih  ver.  ^^\\t^  fpr inkling  ;  and  the  Uitcr  is  faid  to  cleamft,  a« 
|veUa»  ihc  forracr.  The  other  paiTage  is  io  1  Cor.  6.  11.  .ffx//  ^# 
mrfji-hj/ed,  hut  ye  are  jancijied,  &c.  This  is  Co  nearly  parallel  to  the 
formci-,  that  ihc  lame  remarks  arc  applicable  to  both,  and  ikcrcforp 
■othing  furihcr  needs  to  be  added.  — It  appears,  I  thirk,  that  the  word, 
•khich  our  auihor  chieily  depends  on  10  prove  immcrfion  entirely  fail* 
him,  and  finally  determines  in  favoiir  of  a^ufion. 

'J'hii  now  is  the  reCult  of  our  enquiry.  The  word  Bctyj*^w,  is  ti4 
emct  and  perhaps  ng^jtr  ul'cd  in  all  the  Old  TeQanent,  where  bath- 
ing the  body  is  commanded.  It  is  often  ufed,  in  the  New  Teftament^ 
for  fprixk'.irg  or  pourivg.  This  is  the  ujualt  if  not  the  o/ily  word  for  bap* 
lilm.  It  is  ufcJ,  to  be  furc,  in  ne.ir  fixty  pifTiges.  The  word,  Aouw, 
is  fomclimes  uftd  for  bathing  the  body,  but  nevar  ctrtainly  uCed  -for 
baptirm  :  There  arc  but  four  palFagcs,  where  it  is  pretended  to  be  fo 
utcd  ;  .And  even  here  it  is  plainly  fynonymous  w'wh  pouri/ig  or fpr ink* 
Hug, 

It  is  indeed  very  remarkable,  that  the  writers  of  the  New  TcHa- 
tncnt,  when  they  fpeak  of  the  chriftian  ordinance  cf  baptifm ,  have  gen- 
erally (if  not  aiwa>5)  avoided  that  word,  which  in  the  Septuag:at  is 
ufed  for  bathinf^  the  body  ;  and  chofcn  a  word  of  a  more  general  fig- 
nihcaiion  ;  and  if  ibey  have  ever  ufed  the  former,  they  have  joinr^ 
%vith  \t Jprinkiiiig  or  ^ouring^  as  if  it  were  on  pcrpofe  to  teach  us,  that 
|,Iunging  the  v.hole  body  is  a  ceremony  not  required  under  the  goi(- 

Jl.  I  apprehend  we  may  obtain  fomc  f-itisfad  on  in  the  point  be* 
lore  us,  if  we  attend  to  thofe  paflages  of  fcupture,  in  which  the  ufes  of 
baptifm  are  manifclliy  alluded  to. 

I.  One  ufe  of  it  is  to  reprefcnt  the  fanftifyinginfiuer.ee  of  the 
fpiric.  Chriftians  are  faid  to  be  hern  cf  lAsaur  and  of  tie  Spirit  ;  and 
to  be  favcd  hj  the  *-jufljhir.g  cf  rtgenfratim  ci:d  re/:etving  of  tbt  ho^ 
Chfjf.  Pettr  fays  to  the  convi^'led  Je-a^s,  Be  loptixea  and yi Jhall rtteiie 
the  gift  of  tbt  holy  Ghcfi.*  The  influence  o^  the  Spirit  rrprcfcnted  in 
baptifm,  is  ofien  expreffcd  by  pouring  ^'cx^  fprinkU ng  ;  as  in  the  b©* 
fore  cited  ps^iTages  to  Tttus,  and  to  ihc  Hihreivs. — The  rer.e*ujing  of  the 
holyCUji t  'whici?  he  huth  ponitd  en  us. — Halving  the  heart  fprink'e^ 
fiom  an  eutl  tonfittt(e»  Tnii  pouring  tut  of  the  Spirit  is  called,  be* 
if»g  bapti;.ed  with  it.  1  hat  promife,  ?V  /t-.  //  he  hfiptized  nvitb  tht  ho- 
Jj  Gheji,  is  fftid  lo  h«vc  been  fulhlled  when  ChtiSi  /bed  or  p0ut*d fktth 
the  Spirit,  t  f.  .Bapnfai 

'•  *  ^         ^  I  Aa.  T.  5.  auc!  di,  I.  33. 


t     9    3 

2.  Baptifm-rcprcfents  the  forglvenefs  of  iiai.  Hence  thefc  direc- 
tions. Be  bapti%ed^-for  the  remijjion  of  fins, -^Be  baptized  and  rjvap 
aiuay  thy  fins.*  Our  fins  are  wafncd  away  in  Chrift's  blood.  The 
blood  ofCbrifi  cleanfiih  from  all  fin.  He  hath  ivajhtd  us  from  our  fin  s  in 
his  oivn  b/oed.f  And  this  application  of  Chrift's  blood  is  exprtifed  by 
ffrinkling.  Yf  are  cGme-^to  Jefus  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant  and 
to  the  ^y^o^^/*  fpr inkling.  Eledi  according  to  iheforeknonxjledge  of  Gcd^ 
through  fanSificatiou  ofthefpirii  »«/«— fprinkling  cf  the  blood  of  Chrifi  J 

3.  Baptiffii  with  clean  water  may  denote  ihtfimplicitj^ixkit  Goipcl 
difpenfationi 

The  writer  of  the  letters  fays,  '  There  does  not  appear,  in  all  the 

*  five  books  oi  Mofes,  any  rice  of  fprinkling  ««tf(?r  water,  but  it  was  wa- 

*  ter  mixed  with  blood,  afhes,  &c.*  The  Mojaic  inlliiuiion  was  of  a 
thixed  nature  :  It  confifted  both  of  tnoral  and  ceremonial  prccepu.  And 
the  rices  of  purification  were  of  a  piece  with  the  difpeniation  itfeif ; 
for  they  were  performed  by  water  mixed  wich  other  ingredients.     But 

.the  Gofpel  difpenfation  is  pure  and  fimple,  charged  with  few  external 
rites,  and  thefe  plain  and  cafy.  Thus,  Ezek.  36.  25.  God,  fore- 
telling the  happinefs  of , his  people  in  the  Go.pel  times,  fays,  Tbeii 
*will  I  fprinkle  clean  <water  upon  you  and  ye  pall  be  clean.  *  This  ex- 
preiTion,'  fays  the  author  before  mentioned,  '  alludes  to  feme  watry 
purification  in  the  law  of  Mofes. ^  But  he  fays,  *  There  was  no  cere- 
mony of  unmixed  water.*  He  thinks,  *it  alludes  to  the  water  of  fcp- 
aration.'  And  yec  he  fays,  *  This  was  a  compofition  of  various  ingre- 
dients.' 

The  meaning  of  the  pr.iTage  then  muft  be  this.  In  the  latter  timei 
I  will  give  you  Si  pure  and  fpintual  di{pen(&lioti,  not  burdened  with 
foch  rites  and  ccren-ionies  as  the  prefent.  The  fimple  nature  and  fplr- 
itual  defign  of  i:  ^hall  be  reprefented  by  the  great  rite  cf  initiation; 
which  ihail  be  the  fprinkling  of  pure  water,  and  not  the  application  of 
fuch  mixtdcompofitions  as  are  new  in  ufe^ 

Obferve  here  :  Sprinkling  is  faid  to  cleanfe  the  perfon.  /  'will  (pt'ia- 
kle  clean  water  upon  yoti  and  ye  fi:all  be  clean,  and  from  all  your  fiUhi* 
fiefs  <will  /cleanfe  you.  So  walhing  Peter's  feet  only,  was  wudiing 
him.  Peter  fays,  Ihou  fiyalt  ne^ver  ivafi?  my  feet.  Jefus  replies.  If 
Inuafi?  thee  noty  thou  hafi  no  part  in  me.  When  he  moved,  that  hia 
bands  and  headm\^\.  be  wafhed  too,  Chrift  anfwcred,  Heihut  is  nuafi- 

edneed  not  fai;e  towajh  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit.§ 

It 

•  A£l.  z.  38.  and  Chap.  22.  16.  f  i  Joh.  1.  7-  an^  Rev.  1.  >. 

X  Heb.  xa.  34.     i  P«t.  |.  ».  §  John  xj.  8,  9>  ^°' 

B 


i;    10  ] 

Ti  hai  been  faid,  '  A  minifter  may  as  wc!I  wafh  the  hands  o^  fejf, 

*  as  fprinklc  ihe  face  ofa  pcrfon,  in  the  nartic  of  the  Trinity,  and  call 

*  it  baptlfm.*  I  am  far  from  afiTerting,  that  the  validity  of  bapiifal 
Jependi  upon  the  part  to  which  the  water  is  applied.  There  is,  ho.v- 
ever^  an  obvious  propriety  in  applying  it  to  the  hea.i.  This  is  the 
trincif'al  part  cf  the  body.  It  is  the  part  which  is  nfually  unccrjerti  ; 
and  the  water  doubtlcfs  ftlould  be  applied  to  the  pirfcn^  rather  than  to 
his  ck'Jxs.  The  ceremony  oi beneJidion  was  performed  by  laying  tht 
hands  on  the  head.  Undion  was  performed  by  pour'nig  oil  on  the  head^ 
Vihich  w«s  called  anointing  the  body.  The  Holy  Ghoft  was  communi- 
cated by  the  impcfitlon  of  the  Apoftles  hands :  And  they  who  had  the 
Spirit  communicated  to  them,  were  faid  to  be  baptiz.e^  with  it  ;  which 
mikes  it  highly  probable  that  baplifm,  the  token  of  this  coramunica- 
ticn,  was  performed  by  putting  water  on  \\it  heads  of  the  perfons  bap- 
tized.  Accordingly,  the  Apollle  to  ihc  Hcbrc'us  fpczki  of  the  do^Tn'ng 
c/  haptijms  and  laying  on  of  hands.  * 

4.  The  Apoftle,  in  i  Cor.  10.  (peaking  of  the  Jeius  who  came 
out  of  ^gypt*  fay*  ^^^y  '^^'^^^  ^^^  baptized  unto  Mofcs  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  fea.  The  Apollle  here  undoubtedly  alludes  to  chriil- 
ian  baptifm,  and  therefore  we  may  fappofc  there  was  fome  rc- 
femhlance  between  baptifm  unto  Chriji,  and  that  ancient  baptifm  sin- 
to  ^!o/'gs. — Now  how  were  tncy  baptized  in  thedouj  and  fea  ?  Surely 
not  by  being  plunged  all  over  in  water  ;  for  they  uy7/  over  dry  Jhod  ;  but 
only  by  being//ir//;/f/V^with  fome  fprays  of  the  fea,  and  drops  from  the 
cloud.  This  appears  to  me  the  mod  natural  fenfe  of  the  expreflion. 
The  author  of  the  letters  indeed  ridicules  fuch  an  interpretation,  and 
fays,  *  Here  is  an  allufion  to  the  cuftom  oi  immtrfsont  the  Ifraelitis  be- 

*  ing  covered  by  the  cloud  sv^r,  and  by  the  water  on  each  fide  of  them.* 
But  I  think  he  has  not  mended  the  matter ;  for  though  the  waters  fur- 
rounded  them,  yet  (as  he  would  have  it  underftood)  not  even  a  fpray 
touched  them,  nor  a  drop  fell  on  them  ;  for  then  they  would  have  been 

fprinkled.  It  was  a  ^ry  baptifm  :  A  b-aptifm  without  water.  Jonah 
might  as  well  hav«  been  faid,  to  be  baptized  in  allufion  to  immtrfisn, 
when  he  went  down  into  the  fides  of  the  Ihip,  and  there  lay,  while  a 
a  ftorm  hung  ever  him. 

9.  Baptism  fignifies  our  obligation  to  rencuncciCn  and  put  on  the 
charidterof  ChrilK 

The  Apollle  fayi,  Rom.  6.  4.  IFe  an  buried nvitb  Cbrifi  by  baptifm 
W.I9  h:s  death.  And  Col.  2.  12.  Buried  niith  him  in  baptifm.  The 
plain  meaning  is  ;  by  baptifm  we  arc  bound  to  die  to  fin,  and  walk  in 
■cwnefs  of  life,  in  conformity  to  the  dca;h  and  rcfurre^ion  of  Chrift. 

Our 
•  Chap.  6,  >. 


[  1=  J 

Our  brethren  imagine,  thefc  two  pafTagss  afford  a  (Ironw  argumftni 
for  immerfion.  They  tell  v.s,  '  The  phrafe  of  being  lun'e^  iviih  Chrijl. 
in  haptifm,  allodes  tp  the  manner  of  baptifm,  which  was  a  burial  in  the 
water;  for  i|"  (here,  were  nothing  like  a  burial,  the  phrafe  would  b«r 
very  improper*^*.  Butas^wcll  mi^ht  they  fay,  *  The  mode  0/  baptifni 
mu:l  refemblerhis  crucifixion  ;  for  in  the  fanoe  paffage  the  Apoftic  fays, 
II e  are  baptised  ipqhis  death,  planted  tcgether  iu  the  lilcenefs  of  hit 
death'^ouroldman.i^t  cruci)6ed  w//^  him.  Uut  I  am  wiFling  their  ar. 
gument  (hould  have  its  full  weight  ;  for  if  they  think  ir.vierfion  cz^x 
be  proved  from  thefe  tv^o  pafiages,  where  our  conformity  to  Chrift  i$ 
exprefled  by  our  being  buried  with  him  in  bapti/m,  they  mult,  if  they 
will  be  confident  wich  themfelves,  allow  th:it  /pr in. Uing  can  be  more 
cjezrly  proved  from  thofe  ««;z:fr^«;  paffagcs,  where  our  juftificatiort 
through  ChriU's  blood  is  expreffed  by  ihe/pr inkling  0/  his  blood  ;    and 

our  fanftification  is  exprefled  by  the  Jpritpkling  of  clean  ivater by  the 

hearths  being  fprinkled — by  \\it  fpirit'' s  being  poured  on  us,  kc.  The 
conclufion  then  from  this  argument  will  be,  that  both  modes  were  ad- 
mitted by  the  Apoftles — both  are  valid  and  agreeable  to  the  inftitu- 
tion.  Let  us  no  longer  contend.  This  argument  bids  fo  fair  to  rec- 
cncile  our  brethren  to  our  practice,  that  I  could  willingly  leave  them 
in  full  poffeiTjon  of  it,r— I  wi(h  it  good  fuccefs.— But  if  it  be  attended 
to,  I  am  afraid,  it  will  appear  to  have  little  weight. 

How  was  Chrift  buried  ?  Not  as  the  dead  are  ufually  buried  among 
us,  but  as  rich  men  were  among  the  Jews^  in  an  apartment  cut  out  in 
a  fide  of  a  rock.  Such  tombs  were  csLl.Gd/epuhhref  on  kigh  ;•  becaqfe 
they  were  made  above  ground.  Lazarus's  grave  was  of  this  fort  ; 
and  he  was  laid  in  it  in  fuch  a  pofirion,  that,  upon  his  revival,  he  cam* 
forth,  wW\\t\\ew2iS  bound  hand  and  foot  ;  but  he  could  not  ^.valkt  till 
he  was  loofcd.  *  Loofe  him  and  let  him  go.'f  Plunging  then  no 
more  refembles  Chrift's  entombment  than  fprinkling  does.  If  there 
were  any  circumftances  in  his  burial,  which  baptlfm  can  refemblc,  ic 
muft  ht  hh  embalmment.  It  is  faid,  Nicodcmus  brought  ci  mixture  cf 
myrrh  and  aloes,  andivound  the  body  ofjefusinlinen  do!  bet  luiih  the/pices^ 
as  the  manner  cf  the  Jexvs  istolury.l  And  afier  this,  the  luomen  pre- 
pared/pices  and  ein/ments  and  came  to  anoint  his  body.  The  expreflioa 
of  being  buried ivith  Chriji  in  baptifn^  may  allude  to  his  body's  being 
anointed  with  aromatic  ointments  at  the  time  of  his  burial  ;  and  this 
was  done  by  pouring  and  rubbing  them  on  the  body.  Accordingly 
when  the  woman /o^r^^  the  precious  ointment  on  Chrift's  head.  He 
fays.  In  that  Jhe  poured  it  on  m^  body,  Jhe  did  it  to  my  burial.  She  is 
come  to  anoint  my  body  to  the  burying.^      Obferve  ;    her  pouring   it  only 

on 
<  Ifi.  22.  16.       t  joh.  II.  4^.       \  Joh.  19.  4-0.       §  Mat.  26.  7. 


[  I*  ] 

PD  111!  heaJf  he  ca!!s  pouring  it  on  his  body  ;  is  on  another  occafion,  a 
woman's  dropping  her  tears  on  his  feet,  he  calls  ivajhing  his  feet  ;  ajid 
ivafliing  Pcicr's/<r//  was  wafhing  him.  Now  in  allufion  to  this  manner  of 
anointing,  chrillians  are  faid,  to  be  anointed nxith  the  Spirit ^  2.n^  to  have 
an  ufulion  Jrom  the  Holy  OnCt  ivhich  teacheth  them  of  all  thing:. ^  What 
ii  clfewhere  called  \\\t  ponring  of  the  fpirit  on  them  ;  and  being  hapiix- 
/^wich  the  (pirit  ;  is  here  exprcflfcd  by  the  anointing  of  the  fpirit,  in 
aliunon  to  the  manner  of  anointing  \>yf  pouring  o\\  on  the  head. 

III.  It  is  time  that  we  proceed  to  enquire,  in  what  manner  baptifca 
f^as  acminidcred  in  the  times  ofour  Saviour  and  his  Apoftles. 

Our  brethren,  and  particularly  the  gentleman  before  mentioned, 
think  it  \txy  manifeft,  that  imjaerfion  was  the  mode  praftifed  in  ihofe 
times,  bccaufe  the  perfons  baptized  are*  in  one  or  two  inftanccs,  faid 
to  go  into,  and  ccme  out  cf  the  water  ;  becaufe  feme  were  baptized  m 
a  river  ;  And  becaufe  places  abounding  with  water  were  chofen  for  bap- 
tizing. 

Bui  Ift  us  not  be  carried  away  by  the  mccr  found  of  words  without 
examining  their  fenfe. 

It  is  fai'i.  Mat.  3.  i6.  Je/us  being  hapti'x.ed  came  up  o\itof  the  <water. 
The  G.cek  phrafe  TaTro  xjaxTogJ  properly  fignities,  from  the 'water  ; 
and  therefore  implies  no  more  than  that  he  wen:  down  to  it  ;  which 
he  might  properly  be  faid  to  do  in  whatever  mode  he  was  baptized. 
And  as  all  natural  colleflions  cf  water  arc  in  low  places,  fo  the  mo- 
tions to  and  /rem  them,  mud  be  dejcending  and  afcending^  which  is 
fufiicient  to  account  for  the  expreflion.  He  rxiettt  up  from  the  'water. 

As.  Chrift  was  without  fin,  his  baptifm  could  not  be  in  token  of  re. 
pcntance  and  forgivenefs  ;  and,  as  he  came  to  John  after  all  the  peo- 
j)le  were  baptized,  it  could  not  be  for  an  cx3inple  of  baptifm  to  them  : 
but  it  was  evidently  his  public  confecration  to  the  miniftry,  on  which 
he  was  now  entering.  He  chofe  this  ceremony  of  confecration,  in 
conformity  to  the  law  of  God,  which  had  inlHtuted  a  fimilar  form  for 
the  feparationcf  the  high  prieft  to  his  office.  And  therefore  he  fays, 
^lut  it  becjmeth  vs  tofulfl  all  righteoufn^s. 

The  pricfts  under  the  law,  were  to  enter  on  the  public  fcrvice  of 
God  at  the  age  of  thirty  years  ;  Chrid,  tuivn  he  began  to  he  about  thirty 
start  ef  age^  was  baptized.  They  were  confccrated  to  their  office  by 
.K.ofi3ing  ivith  'water,  and  by  anointing  ivith  oil  :  He  was  publicly  in- 
augurated into  his  miniflry,  by  baptifm  and  the  uftciicn  cf  the  Holy 
Ghofi.  God  fays  to  Molci  ;  Aaron  and  his  fans  Jkalt  thou  bring  to  tbc 
door  of  the  tabernacU,  and  ftialt  ivajh  them  ivith  avater  ; — and  thou  fhalt 
four  the  anointing  oil  en  his  head.  Tijau  Jhali  make  a  la'ver  of  brafs  and 
put  "ojattr  thtrtin  \  for  jlaron  and  his  fans  fall  nvuf'y  thiir   hands  and 

their 
•  X  Cor.   I.  21.  ir.d  1  ^•:Y..  1.  1-.  5-. 


t    ^3    I 

their  feet  therein.  And  Mofes  brought  Aaron  and  his  fons  and  *wa/h^ 
td  them  <with  'water,  and  he  poured  the  anointing  oil  on  Aaron" i  head^  and 
anointed  him  tojan^iify  him,^ 

The  priefts  were  wafhed,  not  by  the  immcrfion  of  their  bodies  into 
2  fountain,  but  by  the  application  of  water  to  their  hands  a.n6/eet  from 
a  laver  ;  they  were  anointed  by  oil  poured  on  their  heads  ;  thus  they 
were  publicly  inflated  in  their  office.  Chrift  was  baptized  at  Jordan  ; 
after  his  baptifoj  he  was  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  which  vifibl/ 
defcended  upon  him  ;  and  then  he  was  declared  from  heaven  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  and  the  people  were  commanded  to  hear  him.  Alluding 
to  the  manner,  in  which  the  priefts  were  confecrated,  the  prophet,  in 
the  pcrfon  of  Chrift,  fays,  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  becauje  he 
hath  ZTidXTiitd  me  to  preach  the  go/pel.  f  Peter,  ("peaking  of  the  word 
which  God  fent  to  Ifrael  by  Chrift,  fays.  That  ivordye  knonu,  ivhich 
legan  from  Galilee,  after  the  baptifm  ^^hich  John  preached,  hoiv  God 
anointed  Jfefus  of  Nazareth  luith  the  Holy  GhoJ},  and  ^juith  pciver. 

Now  as  in  the  account  given  by  the  Evangelilis  concerning  Chrift's 
baptifm  there  is  nothing  which  neceffarily  imports  an  immerfion  ;  as 
his  baptifm  was  in  compliance  with  the  inftituted  ufage  of  confecrai- 
sng  the  ancient  priefts ;  and  as  there  is  no  mention  of  their  total  im- 
merfion, but  cxprefs  mention  of  their  partial  wafhing  ;  we  may,  with 
great  probability,  conclude,  that  his  bu.piifm  was  by  the  application 
of  water  to  a /^zr/ of  his  body. 

But  though  he  had  been  waftied  by  immerfion,  this  would  no  oiher* 
wife  be  an  argument  for  immerfion  now,  than  as  an  inftance  of  the  ufc 
of  the  word  baptize,  becaufe  his  baptifm  was  a  dii^eren':  thing  from 
that  which  he  afterwards  inftituted.  And  as  it  appears  highly  proba- 
^blc,  that  his  baptifm  was  z partial  waiting,  it  was  an  example  in  fa- 
vor of  our  opinion,  that  baptifm  does  not  fignify  a  total  immerfion  ;  but 
jnay  properly  be  performed  by  pouring  or  fprinkling  water  on  a  part 
pf  th^  body. 

Again,  Adl.  8.  38.  They  (Philip  and  the  Eunuch)  ivent  dozvn  loth 
into  the  ^juater,  and  he  baptized  him,  and  they  came  up  cut  of  the  ivater. 
This  paflTage  is  thought  to  favor  immerfion  :  But  it  no  more  prove* 
that  the  Eunuch  was  centered  with  water,  than  that  Philip  was  ;  fur 
one  is  faid  to  go  into  the  wa  er,  as  much  as  the  other.  They 
nsight  be  faid  to  go  into  the  water,  if  they  only  ftept  into  the  edge  of 
it.  The  words  do  not  neceiTarily  imply  even  {o  much  a?  that  ',  for  the 
particles  rendered  into  and  out  of,  very  often  fignify  no  more  than  to 
2,n^from  ;  as  where  Chrill  bids  Peter,  go  to  the  fea  and  caji  his  hock — 

and 
♦  Exod.  29.  4,  &:.  Clup.  30.  15,  &c.  Lc7.  8.  6,  }z. 
t  l\\\\.  61.   X, 


r  '4  T 

and  where  the  J^;//»  of  the  South  is  faid  to  comg  from  t^^  utmofi  parts  of 
the  (urtb.  Now  no  man  fuppofcs,  that  Pcier  plunged  \i\m{z\i  into  \\\^ 
'  fra  ;  or  that  the  Qjccn  of  the  South  crept  ouryViJTx  wiicr  ground  ; 
and  yet  the  Greelc  particles  here  rendered  to  unAfiom  are  the  fame, 
f^hich  in  the  cafe  of  the  Eunuch  are  rendered  /;/ro  and  out  cf.  All  there- 
fore than  we  can  conclude  from  this  pafTage  is,  that  they  went  dowa 
frora  the  chariot  to  the  water,  there  Philip  baptized  him,  and  ihea 
they  returned  :  But  in  what  manner  he  baptized  him,  we  can  no  more 
Jearn  from  this  padage,  than  from  any  other  in  the  bible.  But  if  the 
recounts  cf  aocient  and  modern  writers  are  true,  he  could  baptize 
him  only  by  fc-jring  or  /prickling  water  on  him  ;  for  they  fay,  that  in 
the  place  here  mentioned,  nothing  more  than  a  fmall  fpring  can  be 
found. 

It  is  faid,  Mark  i.  5.  They  were  baptized  of  John  ir:  the  river  of 
Jordan.  Hence  fome  have  concluded  tliat  they  were  plunged  in  th» 
river.  But  this  is  ay<j;w^  concluf>on.  Chrift  fays  to  the  blind  man, 
whofe  eyes  he  had  anointed  with  clay,  Co  rvajh  in  the  pool  of  Siloam* 
Here  the  phrafe  of  walliing  in  the  podt  intends  no  more  than  waOiing 
h'5  eyes  with  the  water  of  the  pool.  And  with  equal  propriety  John*s 
hearers  may  be  faid  to  be  baptized  in  Jordan  fif  only  feme  of  the 
ua'er  of  the  river  was  foured  on  thc\r  facer. 

We  read  John  3.  23.  that  John  hapiized  in  Encn  hecaufe  thire  nvas 
rtuch  iL'jier  there.  It  is  aflcfd,  *  Why  fhoald  he  chufe  a  place  abound- 
jog  with  water  to  baptize  in,  if  he  did  not  baptize  by  immerfion  ?* 
J  aoCwer,  Tnefe  words  ^TO>J>.a  iSxrxJ  rendered  mu:h  ivaier,  properlj 
fignify  many  I'.aters,  and  may  be  underllood  of  various  /ivoleis  cr 
fpring?,  which,  travellers  fay,  are  the  only  waters  there  to  bo  found, 
and  no:  any  large  coIle(flior»6  convenient  fjr  immerfion.  If  jJjn 
baptized  only  hy'fij'afon,  a  confiderab'e  quantity  of  water  would  be 
recefTury  to  baptize  fuch  multitudes,  as  went  out  to  him  from  J^ifu- 
fj»m,  and  all  Judta,  and  all  the  region  rou-id  about  J ordan.  Yea, 
ihocgh  ever  {^  few  of  them  had  been  baptized,  there  was  good  «:afon 
«<^hy  he  fhould  chufe  a  place  to  preach  in,  that  was  well  fupplied  with 
water  ;  for  the  muliitudcs  that  attended  on  his  preaching,  in  the  wif- 
c^«rnifj,  at  a  diftance  from  their  homes,  would  need  much  water  for 
iheir  refrefhment.  It  is  by  no  means  fuppofcable,  thatyi/rii»  numbers 
ccu'.d.  here  in  the  dcfart,  be  provided  with  change  of  apparel  proper 
for  imn\ernon  ;  and  forely,  in  fuch  a  r.umercu^  and  m.xcd  afTcmbly, 
ihry  m,rre  not  bapiizrd  naked.  The  circumllances  of  the  cafe  there- 
fore leadu*  10  fuppofc,  they  were  baptized  by  dfufean. 

Wc 


I    ^5    ] 

We  read,  AEi.  2.  Of  three  thu/anJbzptiied,  i^  only  part  tf  a  Jayg 
iat  the  feali  of  pentecoft.  It  cannot  rationally  be  thought,  that /i6^ 
were  plunged.  There  does  not  feem  to  have  been  time  for  it  ;  nor  is 
it  likely  they  had  change  of  raiment,  as  they  came  to  the  feaft  wich* 
out  any  expeftation  of  fuch  an  qccafion  ;  nor  is  it  probable,  they  could 
be  accommodated  there  with  any  convenient  place  for  immerfion.  If 
there  were  baths  fufficient  for  the  purpofe  in  the  temple,  yet  it  is  very 
incredible,  that  the  priefts  and  officers  of  the  temple  fhould  be  ivilling 
to  accommodate  the  Apoilles  with  ihern,  in  order  to  initiate  thefo 
converts  into  a  religion,  which  they  were  endeavoring  by  all  means  to 
fcpprcfs. 

When  we  read  of  whole  families  baptized  in  their  houfes,  particular- 
ly of  the  Jaylor  and  his  iamily  baptized  at  heme,  and  at  midnight 
too,  in  the  fame  hour  in  which  he  believed,  we  cannot  think,  that  a 
fulficiency  of  water,  and  other  conveniences  for  a  decent  immerfion, 
could  be  procured  on  fo  fudden  an  occafion. 

When  Cornelius  and  his  friends  received  the  gofpcl,  Peter  aflcs,  not 
whether  any  man  could  hinder  them  from  going  to  a  fountain  or  river  ; 
hut  IV  l)ei  I  er  a/iy  ma»  could  forbid  ^jjater,  i.  e.  hinder  water  from  being 
provided,  that  ihey  Jhould  not  be  baptized  ?* 

Paul  feems  to  have  been  baptized  in  the  houfe  ol 'Judas.  There 
Ananias  found  him,  delivered  his  mefTage  to  him,  and  laid  his  hand! 
dri  him  ;  And  he  recei'ved fight  forthnjuith  and  arofe  and  njoas  baptized,  f 

It  is  w6rthy  to  be  remarked,  that  thfiugh  we  read  of  baptifras  in  va* 
Hous  places,  yet  We  haVe  no  account  of  any  perfon^s  going  from  the 
place  where  he  was,  in  order  to  be  baptized  in  a  fountain  or  nw. 
er.  They  who  were  baptized  in  Hreams  and  natural  collcdions  of 
water,  are  fuch  as  were  found  abroad,  cither  in  the  wildernels,  or  on 
the  road,  when  they  firft  difcovered  their  delire  to  be  baptized. 

IV.  It  now  remains,  that  we  confidcr,  what  was  the  ufageof  the 
primitive  Church,  upon  which  our  brethren  lay  great  weight  in  this 
controverfy. 

The  author  of  the  letters  fays,  *  The  whole  chriftian  church,  fo*- 
'  1300  years  fuccellively  from  the  time  of  the  Apoilles,  undertlood 
•  by  baptifm,  immerficn,  and  fo  praflifed  ;  Sprinkling" being  only  per" 
'  mitted  on  extraordinary  occaf.ons.^  This  argument*he  often  repeats, 
and  depends  much  upon,  as  do  moft-of  the  advocates  for  immerfion  ; 
for  they  reckon,  that  the  early  pradlice  of  the  Church  in  this  matter 
may  (hew,  what  was  the  pradice  of  the  Apoftles,  becaufe  it  is  not  like- 
ly, the  apoftoHc  praclice  would  be  early  and  generally  departed  frcra. 

The 

•  Aa.  10.  4-.  t  Aa.  9.  is- 


C    i5    ] 

The  truth  is,  The  manocr  of  baptizing  among  the  ancients  was 
Jookcd  upoQ  circumftantial,  and  no  way  effential  to  the  validity  of  the 
ordinance.  Jn  the  times  near  the  Apoftles,  immerfion  was  much  prac- 
ticed, but  never  afTcrtcd  to  be  neceflary  :  Far  from  this  ;  fnrinkling 
was  exprefsly  allowed,  and  frequently  ufed,  cfpccialiy  in  cafes  of  in- 
firmity, hafte,  or  want  of  water  or  other  conveniences.  This  the  Au- 
thor himfelf  concedes,  that  from  the  Apoftles  times  for  1300  years, 
*  fprinkling  was  permitted  on  extraordinary  occafions.'  Cyprian, 
(who  wrote  within  about  1 50  years  of  the  Apoftles)  fpeaking  of  fprinlc- 
iJng,  f^ys*  *  ^^  the  facrament  of  falvation  (i.e.  baptifm)  when  necefli- 
ty  compels,  the  Jhortcji  ways  of  tranfadling  divine  matters,  do,  bjT 
God's  grace,  confer  the  whole  benefit.'  And  it  may  not  be  imperti- 
nent to  obferve,  that  the  ancients,  who  pradlifed  immerfion,  did  ufu» 
ally,  after  the  body  had  been  plunged,  apply  water  to  the  face.  So 
far  therefore  as  the  piailice  of  the  ancients  is  of  weight,  it  proves  all 
that  we  contend  for.  V/e  don't  fay,  immerfion  is  unlawful,  or  a  meer 
nullity  :  Wc  fay,  it  is  not  ncccffary,  but  afFufion  is  fufficient  and 
agreeable  to  the  divine  word.     And  fo  faid  the  ancient  church. 

I  hope  what  has  been  offered  i?  fufficient  to  juftify  the  mode  ofbaptifni 
admitted  incur  churches,  and  tofatisfy  all  who  have  received  baptifm 
in  this  mode  that  they  have  no  need  to  feek  immerfion.  The  quef- 
tion  concerning  the  mode  is  really  of  fmall  importance  in  itfelf,  and 
nothing  but  the  controverfy  about  it  has  made  it  othcrwife.  If  our 
baptifm  is  treated  as  a  nullity  it  is  of  importance  to  fatisfy  our 
minds:  And  if  any  have  beea  thrown  into  doubts,  I  hope,  the  coft* 
fideraiion  of  what  has  been  faid,  will  give  them  fatisfadlion. 


PART 


i  ^7  1 


PART       II. 


DISCOURSE    II. 

I  COME  now  to  the  fecond  part  of  my  defigo,  which  is  {o  vindicate 
the  right  of  Infants  to  Eapcifm. 

The  mechod  in  which  1  (hall  proceed  is  as  follows.  I  (hall  firfl 
confider  the  ulual  objcdions  againfl  infant- baptirtn. — Next  produce 
our  arguments  in  vindication  of  it. — Then  briefly  touch  upon  iho 
reafonablenefs  and  ufefulnefs  of  it. — After  which  I  (hall  give  a  fhort 
view  of  the  praflice  of  ths  church  foon  after  the  Apoftles. — And  thea 
by  way  of  conclufion  ftiall  (hew  the  aSl'ardity  of  feparacious  in  churches 
en  account  of  differences  rcfpefting  baptifm. — The  unwarrantable- 
aefs  of  rebaptiaation,  &c. 

I.  I  will  dillinftly  confider  all  the  material  objeflioos  of  our  brcth- 
ten  agai^ft  infant  baptifm,  as  1  colled  them  from  their  writers,  and 
{>articularly  from  the  author  of  the  letters  before  mentioned. 

I.  It  is  faidj  *  Chrift  ha,s  fully  and  plainly  declared  his  mind  about 
^  baptifm  and  becaufe  he  has  not  commandtd  the  baptifm  of  infants,  h« 
*  has  virtually/or^/V-^c'^  it.* 

Now  though  it  Ihould  be  allawedi  that  there  is  no  exprefs  command^ 
yet  if  we  can  find  a  •virtual,  conjeaiuntial  command  for  it,  that,  1  truft, 
will  be  a  fuiHcient  warrant  :  Ocherwife  what  warrant  fliall  we  have  to 
admit  females  tp  the  Lord's  fuppcr  \  To  obfervc  the  firft  day  of  the 
week  a.s  holy  ?  To  maintain  public  worfhip  ?  'Theft  and  many  other 
things,  are  no  where  enjoined,  in  fo  many  words,  but  yet  can  cJearly 
be  fhewn  to  be  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God.  What  command  have  our 
brethren  to  juftify  their  praftice  ?  Where  is  the  paiTage,  that  tells  us, 
that  baptifm  mu(l  be  confined  to  the  adult  ;  and  infants,  though  for- 
merly admitted  to  the  feal  cf  the  covenant,  muft  now  be  admitted  nd 
more  .?  They  can  find  nothing  of  this  fort.  But,  I  truft,  it  will  ap- 
pear, that  there  is  what  may  properly  be  called  a  command  for  our 
praaice.  If  that  pafTage  in  Ijaiah,  Lo,  I  have jh  th:c for  a  Ight  to 
the  Gentiles,  was  a  command  to  the  ApoHles,    to  go  fend  preach  to  the 

Q  Gentiles^ 


C    is   ] 

Gcniile?,  as  it  is  Tald  Lo  br  ;•  then  the  dircciion  given  io  J hraham 
our  Father,  to  affix  the  token  of  the  corenant  to  his  infant-feed  ;  the 
CommifGon  given  to  the  Apoftlcs  to  difciple  all  nauons  baptizing 
them  ;  and  the  exhortation  of  Peter,  be  kaftixed^for  the  promife  is  to 
you  and  your  ch.ldrtn,  are  commands  to  admit  infants  to  baptifm  ;  a$ 
we  (hiJl  endeavor  to  (hew  hereafter. 

2.  It  is  objcfted,  'that  in  all  the  hiftory  of  the  New  Teftament 
•  ihcre  is  no  ex^mpU  of  infant- bapti I'm  ;  but  the  bapiifms  we  have  ail 
'  account  of,  are  the  baptifms  of  profcfled  believers.' 

But  if  there  is  no  exprefs  mention  of  infant-baptifm,  yet  we  cannot 
hence  conclude,  it  *as  never  pradifcd  ;  any  more  than  we  can  con- 
clude, that  fome  whole  churches  were  formed  without  any  baptifm  at 
all,  becaufe  it  is  no  where  faid,  they  were  baptized.  If  a  plain  diref^ 
example  be  infilled  upon,  our  brethren  muft  certainly  give  up  their  no- 
tion of  baptifm  ;  for  they  can  find  no  example  in  their  favor,  whatever 
cvr  can  *  as  will  be  evident,  if  we  only  confider  what  is  the  queftion 
between  us.  It  is  not,  whether  adult  prwfclytes  Ihould  be  baptized  ? 
But  whether  the  infants  of  profeffed  believers  (hould  be  baptized  ? 
There  axe,  it  is  true,  inftances  enough  of  the  baptifm  of  adults,  who 
had  been  converted  from  Judaifm  or  Pagauifm  :  But  thefc  are  nothing 
to  the  point  ;  for  we  allow  baptifm  to  all  adult  believers,  who  have 
not  been  baptized  in  infancy.  And  the  Apoftles'  baptizing  fucb  is 
no  argument  that  they  did  not  baptize  iff  ants,  any  more  than  our 
miiTionaries'  baptizing  adults  a.mong  the  natives,  is  an  argument, 
that  thiy  dj  not  baptize  infants.  The  queftion  is  meerly  this  ;  arc 
ftic  i^ifants  of  baptized  believers  to  be  admitted  to  baptifm  ?  Or  to  be 
rejew^cd  ?  If  you  fay,,  they  muft  be  rejected  and  fuffcred  to  grow  up  be- 
fore they  are  baptized  ;  I  afK,  Wh'ere  is  your  example  ?  Did  the 
Apoflles  refufe  to  baptize  fuch  ?  Or  among  the  adults  which  they  bap- 
lited,  do  you  find  any  that  were  born  of  chriftian  parents  ?  The  hi/lo- 
t^  cf  the  Aifls  contains  a  period  of  above  30  years,  and  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  a  much  longer  period.  There  was  time  enoui^h  for  two  or 
three  generations  of  infants  to  grow  up  to  adult  age.  We  have  all 
along  accounts  cf  baptifm.  Sut  it  is  rema^Lable,  that  in  all  this 
time,  there  is  no  intimation,  that  any  one  of  the  children  of  the 
early  bclicwrs  was  baptized  after  he  grew  up  ;  or  that  any  one  of 
ihofe  adulis  whom  the  Apo!l!es  baptized,  was  born  of  believing  parent*. 
It  is  plain  ih-^n.  there  is  not  one  example,  that,  in  the  Icall,  favoura 
the  opinion  of  our  brcthreR,  whkh  is  this,  That  the  children  of  believ- 
ers myji  be  left  to  y^row  up    lrf:rt  they  are  baptized.     They  afk ;   *  U 

it 
•  Aft.  13.  4C. 


C     '9     ] 

it  not  allitle Urange,  that  we  no  luhere  find  children  mentioned,  if  Tt 
were  the  Apoftles'  cuOom  to  babtize  tham  with  their  parents  ?'  And 
I  afk  ;  is  it  not  very  ftrange,  that  we  no  where  find  the  children  of 
believers  baptized  after  they  grew  up,  if  it  was  the  Apoftlcs*  cuftom 
to  leave  theni  unbaptized  till  they  grew  up  ?  There  is  no  example 
of  this  kind.  But,  we  think,  we  have  examples,  and  juft  fuch  exam- 
ples in  favour  of  our  practice,  as  we  (Iwuld  have,  upon  fuppofitioo, 
the  ApoHJes  did  baptize  children  with  their  parents. 

Let  us  fuppofe  infants  were  baptized  :  And  what  account  fhould 
we  have  of  it?  Would  the  hiftory  tell  us,  fuch  au  infant  by  name  of 
fuch  an  age,  and  fuch  an  one  of  fuch  an  age,  was  baptized?  No  . 
This  minutenefs  could  not  be  expeded  concerning  infants,  who  are 
feldom  known,  by  their  names  or  ages,  out  of  the  families,  to 
which  they  belong.  All  we  could  expeft  to  be  told  is  this  ;  fuch 
a  man  was  baptized  and  his  family — fuch  a  woman  and  her  houlhold. 
And  fhis  we  are  told  ;  Siepkanas^s  houlhold,  Lydia  and  her  houfliold, 
the  jfaylor  and  all  his  were  baptized  ;  which  are  plain  examples  ef 
families  baptized  upon  the  faith  of  their  rcfpe^ive  heads  ;  as  1  fr.all 
fhew  more  f^slly  hereafter. 

3.  It  is  argued,  *  that  faiih  and  repentance  are  the  conditions  of 
baptifm  ;  infants  are  not  capable  of  thefe,  and  tjierefore  not  capable 
©f  baptifm.* 

But  as  well  might  our  brethren  fay.  Faith  and  repentance  are  con- 
ditions of  falvation,  and  therefore  infants,  being  incapable  of  thefe, 
cannot  be-feved.  It  is  exprefsly  faid.  He  that  btlieveih  not  fimli kt 
damneJ.  It  is  no  where  faid.  He  that  believeth  not,  or  repentelh 
not,  Ihall  not  be  baptized.  Faith  and  repentance  are  required  on 
feveral  particular  occafions,  when  baptifm  was  to  be  adminiftcred  to 
^dult  perfons  ;  but  we  find  no  general  rale  given  to  exclude  from  bap. 
tifm  fuch  as  are  incapable  of  faith  and  repentance.  Our  brethren 
will  not  exclude  infants  from  falvation,  upon  the  authority  of  thofc 
texts,  which  make  faith  the  condition  of  it  ;  and,  furcly,  if  they  will 
be  confirtent  with  themfelves,  they  cannot  exclude  them  from  bapiifm, 
upon  the  authority  of  thofe  texts,  which  make  faith  the  condition  of 
that  ;  efpecially  fince  thefe  te^cs  plainly  refpe(5l  adult  profelytcs. 
That7«r/^  muft  profefs  their  faith  we  allow.  But  the  apoftolic  prac- 
tice (hews,  that  upon  their  profefiion  not  only  thfy  but  their  houjholds 
alfo  (hould  be  baptized  ;  as  under  the  ancient  difpenfation,  when  a 
Gentile  became  a  profelyte,  not  ocly  be  himfcif,  but  all  his  male  chil- 
dren were  circumciled. 

The 


C     ao     ] 

The  inftmccs  in  which  faith,  or  repentance  is  enjoined  prevloufly 
to  baptifm,  are  only  ^hen  adult  pcrfons  enquired  what  was  ncceirary 
for  thtmjdvts.  1  he  quciion  was  not  concerning  the  qualification  for 
bapiifm  in  gentral  \  but  what  was  rcquifitc  in  their  o^jju  cafe.  *  What 
(hall  WE  do?* — 'What  hinders  m  k  to  be  baptized?'  The  Apoftles 
anf*er  ihc  qucftton,  as  it  rcfpc(^cd  thofc  who  propofed  it.  Repent  ye 
and  be  bap :iz.ed-~lf  thou  belie'vejl»  thou  mayfl  be  baptized*  Thcfe  direc- 
tions on»y  prove,  that  a  profeflion  of  faiih  and  repentance  is  neccfTary 
to  the  baptifm  of  adults,  which  none  deny  ;  but,  in  no  degree,  afFcd 
the  ri^ht  of  infants. 

Faith  was  as  much  required  under  the  Old  Tellament  in  order  to 
circumcifion,  as  it  is  under  the  new  in  order  to  baptifm  ;  but  ftill 
infants  were  circumcifed.  The  gentile  profelyic  was  not  admitted 
to  this  rice,  till  he  profelTcd  his  faith  in  the  God  of  Ifrael;  neither 
was  the  adult  Jew.  During  the  forty  years  that  circumcifion  was 
intermitted  in  the  wildcrnefs,  a  new  generation  came  on  the  ftage, 
Thcfe  were  circumcifed  foon  after  they  paflTed  over  Jordan.*  But 
previoufly  to  this,  they  had  folemnly  avouched  the  Lord  to  be  their 
God.  Now  brcaufc  faith  was  a  prc-rcquifite  to  the  circumcifion  of 
adults,  (hall  we  conclude  that  no  infants  were  circumcifed?  This 
would  be  contrary  to  kno-vn  fad\.  But  this  conclufion  would  be  as 
jult  as  the  other,  which  determines  againll  the  baptifm  of  infants,  be- 
caufe  a  profefTion  of  faith  was  required  in  profelytcs.  The  truth  is, 
all  arguments  drawn  from  fpecia!  and  particular  cafes,  arc  imperti- 
nent to  an  enquiry  concerning  a  general  rule  of  pradice. 

The  author  of  the  letters  lays  particular  weight  upon  that  pafiage, 
I  Pet.  3-21.  The  like  fgure  'whereunlo,  even  bnpti/m,  dcth  nciv  Jem 
vif  not  the  putting  aivay  the  flth  of  ihe  firjh,  hut  the  anhvfr  of  a  good 
(orjcience  to-jcards  Gs'd.     *  lierc,*   hc  fays,    *  fucC|  a  condition  of  bap- 

*  tifm  is  reqaired,  as  infants  arc  not  capable  of.     The  filth  of  their 
'  ficfh  may  be  put  away  :    But    how  fhall  they  anf^er    the  good  con- 

•  (cience  ?*  But  it  (hould  be  obftrrved,  that  the  anfwer  o\  a  good  con- 
fcience  is  made  the  condition  of  falvation  :  Not  of  baptifm.  He 
niipht  therefoi^  rather  havefaid,  fuch  a  condition  of  falvatirn  is  re- 
quired as  infants  arc  not  capable  of.  7 bis  is  a  condition  of  falvation 
end  baptifm  too  in  adults,  but  of  neither  in  infants,  who  arc  not  yet 
moral  agents.  The  Apoflle  fiyf,  Circumcifion  is  that  of  the  heart  ; 
but  furely  he  did  not  mean,  that  JfMt  were  incapable  of  the  fleihly 
^i'cumcifion,  until  they  were  capable  ofprofcfllng  the  circumcifion 
of  the  heart.  Baptifm,  which  is  externally  tie  putting  aiKJOf  the  flth 
tftht  fiefit  fignifies  car  obligation  to  avfrxer  a  geed co^fdcnce  toiward. 

•  Joih.  J. 


C   CI    ] 

Qcd.  This  obligation  Immediately  takes  place  with  rcfpeft  to  all, 
«vho  are  moral  agents,  and  with  refpefl  to  infants,  when  they  become 
fuch.     Here  is  then  no  argument  againji  the  baptifm  of  infants. 

Let  us  fee  if  there  be  not  a  plain  argament/or  it.  The  Apoftle  is 
here  fpeaking  of  the  prefervation  of  Noah  and  his  family  in  the  flood 
by  means  of  the  ark.     The  Apoftle    to  the  Hdrezvs   fays  ;  By  faith 

Noah prepared  an  ark  to  the  faving  of  his  houfe.     It  was  by    Nouh'% 

faith,  that  his  family  was  brought  into  the  ark,  and  prefervcd  in  the 
flood.  The  like  figure  'whefHutitOy  even  baptifm,  doth  no^^Ja^oe  us.  Where 
is  the  likenefs  ?  Plainly  here.  As  Noah  by  faith  prepared  an  ark,  by 
which  his  houfe  was  faved  ;  fo  the  faith  of  the  chrifiian  parent  brings 
his  family  within  the  privileges  of  thf  covenant.  Salvation  came  to 
Zaccheus's  houfe,  in  confequence  of  /^/j  believing.  Thej  enjoyed  fome 
fpecial  privileges  on  account    of  his  faith, 

4.  We  read.  Ad.  8.  5.  that  ivhsn  the  Samaritans  bslie'ved  Philip, 
jireachtJig  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  efGoJ,  they  ivere  hapti-^ed 
hath    men  and  nMomen.     Upon  this   our  authpr  observes,   *  The  hiftory 

*  is  fo  particular  as  to  mention  both  men  and  ^Moment  but  there  Hops. — 

*  Had   the  facred  hiftorian  been  a  little  more  explicit  and  faid,  men, 

*  iMomen  and  children,  if  the  fa£l  were  really  fo  ;  it  would  have  pre- 
5  vented  much  doubt  and  controverfy.' 

In  anfwer  to  this,  it  is  fufHcient  to  fay  ;  as  the  feal  of  the  covenant 
under  former  difpenfations  had  been  affixed  only  to  males,  fo  there 
was  good  reaibn,  why  the  hiftorian  Should  be  fo  particular,  as  to  men- 
tion both  OT£;z  and  cc'jw^«,  i.  e.  males  and  females,  (for  thefe  terms 
are  in  fcripture  applied  to  perfons  of  all  ages)  that  it  might  appear, 
that  the  covenant-feal  was,  for  the  future,  to  be  affixed  to  perfons  of 
b(3th y^AT^/.  But  as  the  feal  had  al^jcays  been  applied  to  children,  there 
was  no  occafion  for  his  being  fo  explicit,  as  to  fay,  men,  ^vomen  and 
ihildren,  if  the  faft  were  really  f 0  ;  for  children's  right  to  the  cove- 
nant-token ha4  not  then  been  made  a  queftion  ;  and  they  who  knew 
the  immemorial  and  univerfal  Bfage  of  admitting  Je'wijh  in. ants  by 
prcumcifion,  and  the  infants  oi  Gintile  profelytes  by  baptifm.  did  not 
nerd  to  be  inftruaed,  that  infants  were  entitled  to  baptifm  under  the 
.^hriilian  difpenfaticn.  They  muft  naturally  foppofe  ic  uniefs  cx- 
prcfsly  told  the  contrary. 

5.   It  is  urged  by   feme.    '  that  Jefus  Chriil,  who  came    tc>    be  our 

•  example,  was  bapii/ed   at  a-cult  a^e,  and  that  we  ought  to  imitate 

*  him  herein.' 

But  his  example  is  no  more  an  argument  againft  irtfatit  b»pt>fm. 
than  againft  all  baptifm  under  the  age  of  thirty  years  ;  for  this  was 
hii  ^ge,    rthen  he  yyas  baptized,    though  he  was  certainly  capable  of 

uiideiAaadiDg 


t       C2       ] 

•ndernandlng  the  nature  of  bapiifm  before  he  vj^%  ttuelvt.  Do  oar 
brechren  think,  that  all  arc  bound,  in  imitation  of  Chriil,  to  live,  un- 
bapiized,  twenty  years  after  ihcy  arrive  to  the  age  of  underftanding  ? 

The  obje^lion  before  us  is  founded  in  the  fuppofition,  that  the 
bapllfm  which  Chrirt  received,  was  the  fame,  in  its  nature  and 
defigD,  with  that  wliich  he  hin>relf  after^vards  appoiraed.  If  it  was  a 
cfifferent  thing,  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  it  in  the  prefenc 
qocftioo.  If  it  was  the  fame,  then  it  at  once,  removes  the  principal 
objcflion  agaioft  the  baptifm  of  infants,  taUen  from  their  incapacity 
for  faith  and  repentance.  For  Jefus  was  as  incapable  of  faich  in  a 
mediator  and  repentance  cf  iin,  as  infants  arc  ;  though  from  a  difFer- 
ent  caufc. 

But,  as  I  have  before  fhewn,  Chrift^s  baptifm  was  hi«  pui>lic  in- 
auguration into  his  miniftry,  and  therefore  is  impertinently  adduc- 
ed to  difprovc  the  baptifm  of  infants  ;  when  we  art  uCced,  why 
ChrifJ  was  not  baptized  in  his  infancy,  it  is  fufficient  to  ar.fwer,  be- 
caufc  he  did  not  take  on  him  his  public  miniilry  in  his  infancy.  To 
argue,  that  becaufc  Chrift  was  publicly  confecrated  to  his  pri^fthood 
at  the  age  of  thirty  years,  therefore  none  fhoald  be  given  to  God  by 
baptifm  in  their  childhood,  is  an  inconclufjve  way  of  reafoning. 

Let  it,  however,  be  obfcrved,  that,  though  he  was  not  bapti'z.td  In 
infancy,  yet  he  was  dtdicaud  to  God,  by  fuch  rites  as  were  then  in 
ufc.  He  was  circufnci/cd  on  the  eighth  day  ;  and  on  the  fortieth  day, 
he  was  brought  by  his  parents  into  the  temple,  and  there  prefenied  to 
Oiod,  according  to  the  law,  which  required,  that  every  firft-born  maiff 
fliould  be  holy  to  the  Lord.  This  example  (hews,  that  parents  oj^ht 
'publicly  to  dedicate  thfir  children  to  God  in  his  appointed  way  ;  and, 
fmce  baptifm  is  now  tr>e  appointed  ceiemony  of  dedication,  it  Ihcws, 
tiiat  they  llwuld  prcfcnt  th*ir  children  to  him  in  baptifm. • 

6.    The 

•  If  it  could  be  puoved,  which  ccrtainly'll  never  can,  that  Jvihn  baptized 
omly  adults,  yet  no  argument  comM  hence  be  deduced  againrt  the  li^bt  of  in- 
fanls  to  baptifm  under  the  gofpel  dtr|)cnfation  ;  for  tli#  baptifm  which  John 
admioillcrcd,  was  not  properly  chrirtian  bapiidii. 

Though  belorc  ChrilVb  time,  baptilm  was  in  uf:  among  the  Je\vs,  yet  it 
vras  not  mndc  the  only  initialing  fcal  of  the  covenant,  until  after  his  rcfur- 
ir^tcn. 

John  wa»  fcnt  to  preach  (he  baptilm  of  repentance  tor  tlie  remiffion  of  fin», 
and  thus  to  prrpaie  men  for  that  new  difpcnfanon  of  God's  kingdom,  which 
was  not  yet  co"n»e,  but  was  tlicn  at  land.  Ckrift  inUituted  his  baptifm  after 
ihii  difV'nUtinn  wat  come.  John's  li^ptifm  materially  diircr<'d  from  this. 
The  baptV',  ^^lli«.h  Clniil  ii.iViiuica  \*a5,  in  the  't.mi  of  tfe  Fath;r,  cf  tht 

Son, 


t    ^3    1 

6.  The  incapacity  of  children  for  the  ends  of  baptifm  or  for  any 
benefit  from  it,  is  often  urged  as  an  argument  agaioft  their  being 
baptized.  But 

Son,  anJ  oj  the  Holy  Ghcft.  John  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  ©f  iht  Holy 
Ghoji ;  for  (ovjyt  who  Iwd  received  his  bapiifm,  confeiTcd  that  ibcy  tad  not  ft 
much  as  beards  nvheiher  there  'uoereany  Holy  Ghoft.  He  did  not  baptize  \n 
the  nnme  of  the  Son,  or  into  the  faith,  that  Jefus  avas  the  Chriji  j  but  nvhb 
the  baptifm  of  repentance,  faying  to  the  people  that  theyjhould  beliet'e  on  him, 
ivbo  Jhould  come  after  him '^  that  is,  on  Jefus  Chrif^  Nor  did  he  baptize 
into  Chrifs  death,  for  this  event  had  not  then  taken  plate.  Had  John  taught 
that  Je^lis  of  Nazareth  was  the  Chrift,  and  baptized  the  people  in  his  name,  and 
into  this  faith,  they  would  not  have  mufed  in  their  hearts,  ^whether  John  ^uurg 
the  Chrif  j  nor  have  afked  him,  Why  baptizefl  thou,  if  thou  art  not  the  Chriji  ? 
Nor  would  Jefus  have  cautioned  his  difciples,  to  tell  no  mtui,  that  heivasthe 
Chriji,  till  after  his  refurredion,  John's  baptifm  was  defjgned  to  prepaie 
men  for  the  faith  in  Chrift,  when  he  fhould  be  made  manifeft  to  Ifrael. 

But  what  is  decifive  in  the  cafe  is,  that  they  who  had  received  John's  bap^ 
tifra,  were  afterward  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus. 

Among  the  many  thoufands/rc7«  all  Judea  andjervfalem,  to  whom  Peter 
preached  on  the  day  of  pentecoft,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  there  were  mul- 
titudes, who  had  been  baptized  by  John  j  for  there  ivent  out  to  him  all  th^ 
land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerufalem,  and  all  the  region  rou7id  about  Jordan, 
and  were  baptized  of  him.  And  yet  Peter  fays  to  them,  without  diftinction. 
Repent  and  be  baptizexi^  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jefu^  Chrift. 

An  inftance  (fill  more  plain  we  have  in  the  beginning  of  the  19th  Ch.  of 
A^s.  Paul  finding  at  Ephefus  twelve  difciple?,  faid  to  them,  Ha^je  ye  re^ 
ceived  the  Hsly  Ghofi  fnce  ye  helienjed  ?  And  they  faid  to  him,  We  hanje  not 
fo  much  ifs  heard,  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghofl.  And  he  faid  to  ilieiu. 
Unto  to  what  then  were  ye  baptised?  And  they  faid.  Unto  Johns  hoptifii. 
Then  faid  Paul,  John  eerily  baptized  with  the  baptifm  of  repentance,  faying 
unto  the  people,  that  they  Jhould  belie-ve  on  him,  who  Jhould  come  after  htm, 
that  is,  on  Jefus  Chrift.  When  they  heard  this,  they  ^^vere baptized  in  the  namr 
of  the  Lord  Jefus.  And  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  on  them,  the  Holy  Ckoji 
ca?ne  upon  them,  Sic, 

When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus, 
Themoiining  cannot  be,  that  wheu  the  people  heard  John^  they  weje  by  line 
baptized  in  the  7: am e  of  the  Lord  Jefus  ;  becnufe  then  it  will  follow,  th.^t 
Paul  laid  his  hands  on  all  the  people  wkom  John  baptized  ;  for  ilicy,  w^f> 
are  here  faid  to  be  baptized,  are  evidently  the  perfons  on  whom  Paul  laid  ha 
bauds.  But  the  fenfe  muft  be,  that  when  thcfe  twelve  difciples  who  haJ 
been  baptized  by  John,  now  heard  Paul,  they  were  baptized  by  him.  It 
follows  then  that  John's  baptifm,  being  neither  in  the  name  of  Chrift,  nor  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  was  different  from  that  which  Chrift  inftitulcd  ;  and  no  ar- 
guments  can  be  drawn  from  the  former,  to  determine  the  mode,  or  fubjvda 
(>f  the  latter  ;  nor  can  ths  repetition  of  chriftian  brptifm  be  juftified  fiom  tfc^-« 
example  of  Paul, 


.  But  really  the  qacfJon  is.  Whether  there  be  any  divine ^TarrinHof* 
ttcir  baptifin  r  If  there  is,  it  becomes  os  to  pr^ClUe  accordingly, 
and  not  to  arraign  the  wifdom  of  God.  Thar  there  arc  forac  ration- 
al ends  to  be  aniwcrcd  by  infant  baptifm,  and  that  it  is  a  gracious 
and  beneficial  inlUiuticn,  1  trud,  will  appcaj  under  another  head, 
'  uhcre  this  objeftion  will  receive  a  full  apf^i^.^  In  the  mean  linlc 
it  may  fufficc  to  obfcrve,  that  infants  jirc  nowr^af  capable  of  the  ends 
of  baptifm,  a$  they  were  anciently  of  the  cnd;i  of  circDmcifion.  They 
may  be  brought  into  covenant  with  God — may  have  privileges  made 
over  to  them — may  receive  the  fcal  and  token  of  privileges — may  be 
laid  under  obligations  to  obey  tho  gofpel,  as  the  ju'wijh  infants  by 
circumcifion  becanje  debtors  tocbey  the  law — and  may  become  fub- 
jefls  cf  that  jultification  through  Chrill's  blood,  that  renovation  of 
the  Spirit,  and  title  to  eterr.al  life,  which  arc  fignified  and  rcprcfenicd 
in  bapiifm. 

I  have  now  given  you  a  view  of  all  the  material  arguments,  which 
are  brought  to  difprove  infant  b-iptiftn.  And  what  has  been  faid  in 
anfwcr  to  them  is,  I  think,  fufficient  to  Ihew,  that  they  have  no 
real  weight.  The  way  is  now  prepared  to  bring  forward  cur  argu- 
ments in  vindication  of  this  point,  which  was  the  fccond  thing 
propofed. 

U.  We  win  here  take  a  diftinft  view  of  the  principal  arguments  in 
defence  of  the  right  of  believers'  infants  to  baptifm,  and  endeavour 
to  clUblifh  them  againd  the  cavils  of  our  opponents,  and  particularly 
the  author  of  the  letters  before  mentioned. 

I.  Ojr  firll  argument  (hall  be  taken  from  the  Abrahamic  coTenant 
togethtr  with  the  Apoftle*s  explanation  of  it. 

In  the  17th  chap,  of  Gen.  we  find,  that  God  made  a  covenant  with 
Abraham  and  his  feed,  into  which  his  infants  were  exprefsly  taken,  to- 
gether v^th  himfclf,  by  the  fame  rite  and  token.  This  covenant 
comprehended  not  only  his  natural  feed,  but  the  llranger  who  was 
not  of  his  foed.  It  was  7k  Jpiritual  covenant.  The  capital  promife 
of  it  was,  /  "Mill  be  a  God  to  tkce  and  thy  feed  after  thte. — This  was  llie 
fame  covenant,  which  now  fubfilb,  and  which  we  are  now  ander,  in 
ihis  gofpcl-agc,  as  the  Apolllc  exprcfsly  teaches  us,  in  the  4th  chap, 
to  Rom.  and  3d  chap,  to  Gal.  where  he  argues  from  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  to  Ihew  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  gofpel-covcnant.  He 
teftifies,  that  all  believers  under  the  gofpcl,  whether  yricv  or  Gtntilts, 
t^xt  the  fpiritual  feed  of  Abraham,  and  confequently  htin  cf  thi promiji 
made  to  him— that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  was  confrmed  of 
C$d in  Cbrij} — that  the  law  which  was  given  afterward  did  not  difan- 
nul  tl»c  covenant,  or  vacate  the  proaiifc— ihit  the  gofpcl  was  preached 

10 


to  Abraham,  in  t}iat  promife  of  the  covenant  with  hira.  In  thet  ftsali 
all  nations  be  blejfed — that  the  bleffing  of  Abraham  is  come  upon  the 
Gentiles  through  Chrift — that  the  promife  made  to  Abraham  is  fore  to 
ai]  the  feed,  not  only  to  that  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  aifo  which 
Ss  of  the  faith  oi Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all>  as  it  is  written, 
I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations — that  they  who  are  of  faith 
are  the  children  q{  Abraham,  and  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  were  the 
promifes  made — and  much  more  to  the  fame  purpofe. 

Now  if  we  are  the  feed  oi  Abrahar^,  for  whom  the  covenant  with 
him  was  eftablifhed,  and  are  ftill  under  the  fclf-fame  covenant,  tfcea 
the  fame  privileges  that  were  herein  granted  to  him,  belong  to  us. 
dne  grant  of  that  covenant  was,  that  infants  fhould  be  received  with 
their  parents  by  the  fame  fign  and  feal  ;  and  therefore  we,  as  the  feed 
of  Abraham,  may  claim  this  privilege  for  bur  infants.  Yea,  God  not 
only  allowed,  hot  commanded,  that  the  appointed  token  of  the  cove- 
nant ihould  be  affixed  to  every  male  child  that  was  not  under  eight 
days  old.  Here  then  is  a  plain  command  given  to  Abraham  our  fath- 
er, and  confequently  to  us  his  children,  to  apply  the  token  of  this 
very  covenant,  which  we  are  now  underi  to  our  infant-feed.  The 
only  qucftion  is^  whether  there  b*  now  any  token  of  the  covenant  ? 
Had  circumcifion  been  continued,  none  could  doubt  but  infants  were 
ftill  fubje<^s  of  it  by  virtue  of  the  command  given  to  Abraham^  unlefs 
they  would  expunge  the  4th  chap,  to  Rom.  and  3d  to  Gal.  Circum- 
cifion has  ceafed.  But  has  Ghrift  appointed  any  token  of  the  gofpel 
covenant  ?  Baptifm  is  certainly  fuch.  ^his  then  \%  to  be  applied  to 
the  fame  lubjedls  as  that  was.  If  there  was  an  exprefs  command  to 
affix  the  covenant  feal  to  infants  in  Abraham's  time,  and  the  cotehanc 
ftlll  remains  ;  then  thecovenant-feal,  what  ever  it  is,  ought  to  be  af. 
fixed  to  infants  now;  unlefs  the  command  has  been  repealed.  The 
thange  of  ihc feal  makes  no  change  of  ihefubje^^.  There  muft  be  a 
command  to  warrant  our  rejeding  the  oldfubjefi,  as  well  as  to  jullify 
oiir  dropping  the  old  feal.  If  our  brethren  afk,  Why  wc  have  difcon- 
tinued  circumcifion,  and  iibw  make  ufc  of  bapiifm  t  Wc  infwer,  Chrift 
fcas  fo  commanded.  Let  them  produce  as  good  authority  for  affixing 
this  «^^l»  feal  of  the  fame  covenant  to  believers  only,  and  net  to  their 
children,  and  we  will  comply  rith  them.  Wc  demand  of  them  to 
ihew  us  fome  plain,  pofuivc  ord^  of  ChriH  to  deny  the  fcal  of  the 
covenant  to  thole  fubjcfts,  to  whom  is  was  fufl  ordered  to  be  applied*^. 
Until  fuch  order  appears,  we  boldly  affirm,  that  the  old  comtnand  re- 
mains, and  to  aft  in  difobedience  to  it  is  prefumption. 

To  evade  the  force  of  this  argarticnt,  our  brethren  affert,  that  '  the 
*  chriflian  church  is  an  inftitution  entirely  new  ;  a  ftruflurc  crctHcd  on 
D  '  'a 


[  "-6  ] 

'  a  new  foandaijon,    dlftln«f^  from,    and  unconnected  with  the  founda- 

*  lion  of  the  patriarchal  andjewilh  church  ;'  for  they  cafily  fee,  ihat 
if  the  chrirtian  church  is  the  ancient  church,  continued  under  the  fame 
covenant  which  was  niadc  in  ancient  tirae3,  then  the  admiflion  of 
children  with  their  parents  into  this  church,  will  ftand  I'ecure  on  the 
foot  of  the  former  inlliiution.  It  may  not  therefore  be  improper  to 
pnrfuc  oar  prefcnt  argument  a  little  farther. 

The  foundation  of  the  ancient  church  is,  the  Ji/fovery  of  Czd's  mercy 
io  fallen  men  thrcugh  a  redeemer.  This  difcovcry  was  firll  made  to  Adam 
in  the  fcntencc  on  the  tempter ;  and  afterward  more  fully  to  Abraham 
in  the  promifc  already  mentioned.  This  God  exprcfsly  calls  his  evtr- 
lafirg  covenant.  This  is  always  confidcred  by  Mofes  and  the  pro- 
phets, as  the  ground  on  which  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  Jewifh  church 
rerted.  Mofes  fays,*  *  Yc  Hand  all  of  you  before  the  Lord,  your 
'-jjizet  and  Hide  ones^  that  thou  fliouldft  enter  into  covenant  wiih 
him,  that  he  may  be  a  God  to  thee,  as  he ha:h  fjjorn  to  Abraham.  Trte 
prophet  Jeremiah,  f  foretelling  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  cicfcribes  it 
by  an  allufion  to  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  which  he  dillinguiiliea 
from  th*  covenant  of  peculiarity  made  with  the  Jews  at  Sinai,  when 
they  came  cut  of  Egypt.  The  apcflle  to  the  Hebrews,  J  applies  the 
prophet's  description  to  the  gofpel-ftatc.  The  old  covenant,  which, 
he  fays,  was  decayed  and  ready  to  vanilh,  is  not  the  covenant  with 
Ahraham\  for //-'./  he  calls  the  covenant  which  God  would  make  in 
the  latter  days,  or  would  explicitly  renew  in  the  gofpsl  time,  prom- 
ifinp,  /  -vjill  be  their  God  :  but  the  old  covenant,  which  was  to  vanilh 
away,  no  more  to  be  renewed,  is  the  ceremonial  covenant,  or  that  which 
GoJ  made  with  the  Jews,  'ivhcn  he  brought  them  out  of  Egypt. 

When  the  prophets  foreicl  the  call  of  the  gentile?,  they  (peak  of 
them  as  joining  therafelves  to  the  church  then  fubfifting.  In  the  49;h 
chap,  oi  ifaiah,  God  comforts  Sion,  the  Jewifh  church,  in  her  <ic(^ 
pondcncy,  with  a  promifc  that  he  will  never  fjrfake  her,  but  her  walls 
Ihall  be  continually  before  him.  '  Lift  up  ihine  eves  roundabout/ 
fayt  her  God,  *  and  behold  !  Ail  ihefc  gather  ihemfe'.ves  together, 
'  and  com-j  unto  T  H  E  f.  The  children,  which  thou  (hat  have  after 
'  thou  haft  loft  the  other,  (hall  fay.  The  place  is  toofiraic  for  me.— • 

*  Then  (halt  ihou  fay,  Who  hath  begotten  me  thcfe.  feeing  I  have  loil 
'  my  other  children  ?   Thuj  faith  the  Lord,    Behold,  I  will  lift  up  my 

•  hand  to  the  Geniilrs — and  ihey  (hail   bring  thy  fons,  in  their  arms 

•  and  thy  da^ighten  (hai:  be  c\7r\cd  en  their  (houlders.'— The  child- 
ren of  thefc  Gentile  profrlytes  are  called  the  fons  and  dau-hters  of 
the  church.     They    xre  brought  in  the   ar.ns  of  their  parents  to  the 

church 
•  Dcut.  *9.  -}    Chip.   31.   3r.  J  Chsp.  «. 


L     ^7     ] 

church  *  to  be  nurfed  at  her  fide.'  No  words  can  more  plainly  de. 
ffiribe  the  admifliOQ  of  geniile  profclytes  into  the  very  charch  which 
was  then  in  being,  and  the  folemn  dedication  of  their  children,  as 
members  of  the  church  with  them.  Similar  reprefcntation*  are  frc* 
quent  in  the  prophetic  writings. 

The  words  of  our  Saviour,  in  loth  chap,  of  John,  are  fall  toourpgr. 
pofe.  *  Other  (heap  I  have  which  arc  not  of  this  fold  ;  them  alfo  I 
muft  bring.'  I  mult  bring  them  into  this  fold,  the  Je*i/h  church  - 
for  what  other  fold  was  there  then  exifting  ?  '  And  they  fhall  hear  ir»y 

*  voice  ;  and  there  Ihall  be  one  fold,  and  one  (hepherd.' 

The  apollle  Pecer,  *  exhorting  the  Jews  to  repentance,  points 
them  to  the  Saviour,  whom  the   prophets  foretold,  and  fays,   '  Ye  are 

*  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  covenant,   wh.ch  God  mads 

*  with  our  fathers,  faying,  In  thy  feed  f?  all  all  of  the  families  of  the  earth 

*  be  hleffed :  unto  you  firll  God  hath  raifed  up  his  Con,  and  fent  h;m  to 
bltfs  you.* 

Paul,  in  the  epift'e  to  the  Ephefians,  treats  explicitly  on  this  fub- 
je£t.  He  fays,  *  Ye  were  once  afar  off,  without  Chrift,  aliens  from 
'the   Commonwealth  of  Ifrael,  and   itrangers   from  the  covenants  of 

*  promife.     But    now    in    Chrift  ye  are    made    nigh.     Chrift  ij  cur 

*  peac-»  who  hath  made  loth  one  ;*  i.  e.  hath  united  both  Jev»s  and 
Gentiles.  Now  therefore  ye  are  *  no  more  ftrangers  and  foreigners, 
'  h\i\.fello~JU- citizens  <ivith  the  faint  s,  and  of  the  houfjold  of  God  ;  and  are- 
«  built  on  the  foundaiion  of  the  apofiles  and  prophets  y  Jefjs  Chrift  him- 
'  felf  being  the  chief  corner  ftone.*  The  prophets  and  apoftles  laid 
the  fame  foundation.  The  prophets  fo;etold  a  Saviour  to  come  ;  the 
apoftles  preached  this  Saviour  already  come.  The  predidlions  of  the 
f.  rmer,  and  the  doflrines  of  the  latter  arc  the  fame  foundation,  the 
corner-ftone  of  which  is  Chrift  himfelf.  The  apoftle  adds,  *  Ye  have 
heard  of  the  difpenfation  of  the  grace  of  God,  that  the  gentiles  fhould 

*  h^  felioiv  heirs i  and  oi the  fame  body  and   partakers  cf  his  promife  in 

*  Chrift  by  the  gofpel,' 

The  Jews,  who  were  baptized  on  the  d:yof  pentecoft,  believed 
that  Jefus  was  Lord  and  Chrift,  on  evidence  derived  from  the  pro- 
phets ;  and  were  admitted  tobaptifm  on  the  foot  of  the  pvomfe  made 
\.QiX,\t\r  fathers.  The  fame  promife,  which  was,  the  foundation  of  the 
ancient  church,  and  of  which  circumcifion  was  the  fcal,  is  alledged 
by  the  apoftle,  as  a  reafon  for  the  baptifm  of  ihcfe  Chriftian  jews 
and  their  children,  and  as  many  as  God  (hould  call  from  among  the 
gentiles.  The  chrift  an  church  here  ftands  on  the  old  foundaiion  ; 
arid  (o  this  church  were  addfd  tho^e  who  afierwird  were  bu-ptized. 


t  ^«  ] 

In  the  mh  chap,  to  ihc  Romans  the  iportlc  cxprcfily  doclatM, 
that  ihc  gentile  believers  are  grafted  into  tbt  Jamc  cli<ve-tree  from 
wh'.chyon^  of  the  Jc*vs,  the  natural  branches,  were  broken  off  by  un- 
belief. *  If  fonic  of  the  branches,  were  broken  off,  and  thou,  being 
'  a^wilJ  olive,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,'  the  branches  that  re- 
«  mained,  *  and  with  them  partakeft  of  the  root  and  tfatnefs  of  the  olivc- 
«  tree,  boaft  not  againft  the  branches  ;   for  thou  bcareft  not   the  root, 

•  but  the  root  thee.   They  were  broken  off  by  unbelief*  and  thou  ftand- 

•  ell  by  faith.'     It  is  the  fame  root^  which  bcareih  the  natural,  and 
the   ingrafted  branches.     So7m  of  the   natural  branches  were  broken 
off^not  all.— The  bclicv^ngjewscontinucd  ftill  in  the  fame  old  flock, 
5n  which  they  had  before  ftood,  and  in  which  believing  gentiles  were 
ingrafted.     The  gentiles  were    not  infcrtcd   into  a  neiu  (lock,  a  tree 
lately   grown  up  ;   nor  were  believing  Jews   lopt  off  from  the  old  tree 
10  be  infcrted  with  gentiles  into  a  new  one  :  but  the  former  remained 
ir*  the  old  (lock,  and  the  latter  were  grafted  in  among  them,  to  partake 
nxjith  them  of  the  root  and  fatnefs  of  \.\ic/ame  oli've,  which  had  former- 
ly nouriftied  them.     And  it  is  obfervable,  that  thefe  Jews,  who  imme- 
diately and  readily  fubmitted  to  the  gofpel,  on  its  being  propofcd  to 
them,  fccm   not  generally,  if  in  any   inftance,  to  have  received  chrxf- 
tian  baptifm.     Heathens  and  Samaritans,  who  were  no:  of  the  church 
of  God,  and  thofc  Jews,  who  by  obftinatc   unbelief,  and  open   oppofi- 
fion  to  the  gofpel,   had  broken  themfelvcs   off  from  the  church,  were, 
on    their   proftffdd    repentance,    baptized.      The    other    continued  in 
God's  covenant  and  church.     This  thought  we   fhall  have  occafion  tp 
rcfume  hereafter.     When   the  unbelieving  Jews    (hall,   in   the  latter 
day?,  turn  to  the  Lord,  they  (hall  be  grafted  again — in'.o  what  ? — an- 
other tree    ? — no  ;  into   their    own    olive-tree  ;  for  the  covenant 
which  God  made   with  their   fathers,  \i  the  fame,  which  he  will  make 
^ith  then  In  the  latter  days,  when  he  (hall  tike  away  their  fins. 

We  have  now  an  obvious  anfvver  to  a  quedion,  which  our  brethren 
f^fteq  put  to  us.  '  If  ihc  children  of  believers  are  rubje(as  of  the  co- 
venint-ical  under  the  gofpel,  as  ihcy  were  under  former  difpenfations, 
why  have  we  not  fomedirefl,  pofuivc  inllitution,  which  might  havo 
prevented  all  controvcrly  ?* 

Tnc  fa^  is,  the  gofpel  found  the  children  of  God's  people  already 
in  covenant  by  virtue  of  the  ancient  inlVitution  :  and  a  new  inftitution 
of  that,  which  had  been  plainly  inllitu:ed  before,  and  was  not  then  fo 
much  as  queftioned,  would  have  been  fuperflaous  ;  not  to  fay,  abfurd. 
'Xne  gofpel  has  made  it  as  plain  as  language  can  make  any  thing, 
thai  ibc  ancient  covenant  with  Abraham  is  ilill  continued  :  and  if 
cliiJrcu  were,  I)y  divine  c^m.T»ind,  to  receive  ;hc  fcal  of  the  cove- 
ts nf 


[=9    ] 

fi»ttt  formerly,  ihcy  are  to  receive  it  ffill,  linlefs  the  coasmand  is  foinei. 
where  in  the  gofpel,  cxprefsly  revoked.  We  need  no  new  inftiiution 
to  warrant  our  applying  the  feal  to  them  ;  but  we  evidently  need  t 
new  inftitution  to  juftify  our  excluding   them  from  i:. 

Infant  haptifrii  ftands  on  the  fame  ground  as  the  chriftian  fab. 
bath.  Ifitbeaflced,  why  the  gofpei  has  not,  in  fo  many  words,  in- 
Hituted  a  weekly  fabbath,  the  anfwer  is,  it  found  a  weekly  fabbath  al- 
ready inflicuced  ;  and  a  formallnftitucion  of  that,  which  had  been  in- 
fiituted  before,  was  wholly  unnectflary.  The  apoftles  took  the  fab- 
bath as  they  found  it,  only  bbfefving  a  different  day,  after  Chrift's  re- 
furreflion,  in  memory  of  that  glorious  event.  So  they  continued  the 
ancient  ufage  of  applying  the  feal  of  GodU  covenant  to  children,  as 
well  as  parents  ;  only  they  changed  the  external  form  of  the  feal, 
fgbftituting  baptifm  for  circumcifion.  The  ancient  inftiiution  unre- 
voked, if  we  had  nothing  more,  would  be  fufficicnt  to  juftify  the  ap- 
plication of  the  feal  to  infants.     But  we  have  ftill  farther  warrant. 

Let  us  view  the  argument  in  another  light. 

2.  Circumcifion  was  of  old,  by  divine  command,  applied  to  In- 
fants :  And  if  baptifm  Hands  now  in  the  place  of  circumcifion,  thea 
this  is  alfo  to  be  applied  to  the  fame  fubjecls.  The  confequence  is 
plain  and  undeniable.  The  only  queftiou  is.  Whether  baptifrn  does 
now  Hand  in  the  place  oCcircqmcifion  ?  This  is  the  point  to  be  prov* 

That  circumcifion  was  the  feal  of  the  covenant  with  Ahraharriy  ani 
was,  by  divine  appointment,  adminiftered  to  infants,  is  well  known — 
that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  ftill  fubfifts,  and  is  the  fame  as  the  Gofpel 
covenant,  the  Apoftle  plainly  tcaches---tbat_  baptifm  is  now  the  ap- 
pointed token  of  the  gofpel  covenant,  none  will  deny  :  The  confe- 
quence  is  obvious  j  baptifm  now  ftands  in  the  place  of  circumcifion, 
for  it  is  the  initiating  feal  of  that  stty  covenant,  of  which  circumci- 
fion was  the  feal  formerly. 

Again.  The  Apoftle  fays,  Rom.  4.  1 1.  Abraham  receizeJ  the  jign  ef 
circumcifion^  a  feal  of  ths  right  eoufref  of  faith.  It  is  plain  from  this  paf- 
fage,  that  circumcifion  was  a  fign  of  fpiiitual  bleftings,  the  blefliogs  of 
the  covenant  of  grace  :  And  not  (as  fome  abfurdly  pretend)  mecrly 
a  fign  of  worldly  privileges,  fuch  as  a  right  to  the  land  o{  Canaan,  a 
numeroos  iffae,  &c.  There  were,  it  is  true,  trnporal  bleflings  prom- 
ifed  to  Abraham  and  his  feed.  But  to  argue  from  hence,  that  the  cov- 
enant with  him  was  a  meer  temporal  covenant,  and  that  circumcifion 
was  only  a  feal  of  it  as  fuch,  is  as  abfurd,  as  it  would  be  10  fay,  The 
g-ofpel  is  a  mscr  worldly  inftitu:ioD,  bccaufe  i;  has  the  promifc  of  the 

life 


[     30     1 

life  that  now  IS  and  of  that  which  is  to  come.  The  Apof^lc,  io  ihh 
paffjgc,  reprefcnts  circumcifion  in  quite  a  difFcreni  li^hr,  as  cfpecial- 
ly  aud  eminently  z  (c^\  of //>/r:tuai  blefHngs. — That /tf/ft/5»  ij  fuch, 
all  allow  :  And  therefore  it  comes  in  the  room  of  circu.-ncifion,  and 
ftands  in  the  place  io  v^Jilch  that  once  ftood. 

Farther  ;  Thefc  two  rites,  though  different  in  their  outward  formg 
arc  the/ame  in  their  fpiritualufc  and  fignificancy.  Circumcifion  fig- 
xiificd  our  native  corruption  :  fo  does  baptifm.  Circumcifion  pointed 
out  the  nccefTity  of  inward  purity  and  fpiricual  renovation  :  fo  doe* 
bap'.ifzn.  That  repre(cniftd  our  juftificaiirm  by  the  b!o3d  of  Chrift  ; 
ib  docs  this.  "-That  was  a  ceremony  cf  admiffion  into  God*»  church  : 
fo  is  this.  That  denoted  men's  relation  to  God  and  obligation  to 
obey  his  law.  'Thts  alfa  denores  cur  relation  to  Chrift  and  obligation 
10  obey  his  gofpel. 

But  the  Apoftlc  puts  this  matter  out  of  all  doubt,  when  he  calls  ha^^ 
trjm  the  circumcifion  of  Chrijl,  and  urges  chrillians  being  baptized,  as  a 
f  eafon  why  they  need  not  be  circumcifedi 

He  fay<.  Col.  2.  ji.  12.  Te  are  complete  ^.  him,  (in  Chrifl) /« 
Kihcm ye  cdfo  are  circumciftd  ivith  the  circumcifon  made  nxithout  hands ,  in 
futting  off  the  body  of  the  fins  oftheficjh  by  the  circmcifion  ofChriJi,  buried 
•'.x;:th  htm  in  baptifm.  The  apoftle  here  calls  baptifm,  the  circumcifion  of 
Chrifi,  or  the  chriftian  circumcifion.  But  he  calls  it  by  this  name 
without  any  propriety,  unlefs  it  ftands  in  the  place  of  circumcifion. 

The  author,  whom  I  have  fcvcral  times  mentioned,  labours  much  to 
evade  the  force  of  this  pafTage.  He  fays.  By  the  circutncifion  of  Chrifi 
\%  meant,  •  ihey/»;>//aa/ circumcifion,*  or  renovation  of  the  heart*  ia 
diSir^clion  from  *  the  Itieral  circumcifion.'  B-t  this  cannot  be  the 
meaning  of  the  phrafe  :  For  the  inward  fpiritual  circumcifion  is  men- 
tioned ift'ihc  preceding  branch  of  the  fentence,  under  the  name  ai the 
(ircumcifion  made  tvifhsu.'  hands.  And  if  we  take  borh  phrafcs  to  fig- 
nify  xhcfame  ;  then  we  (hall  make  the  words  to  run  thus.  Tc  are  dr- 
iuiKcijed  tuith  the  fpiritual  circumcifion,  in  being  circunci/ed  by  the  fpirit- 
ual circumcfion.  Such  an  unmeaning  repetition  never  dropt  from  the 
Apt.ftle. 

The  writer  fay«,  *  That  to  guard  ihe  ColofTian?  againft  th;  danger 
cf  being  fci^uccd  to  the  obfervance  of  circumcifion,  the  ApcRle  lelli 
ihcnn.*  'They  had  received  the  //)^''/■/l♦^l/ circumcifion — and  ihere- 
Jjrc  ihe  l.tcral  circumcifion  was  not  ncccffiry.*  B  it  how  did  this 
ipifitual  circumcifion  or  internal  renovation  prove,  that  the  literal  cir- 
camcifioQ  was  no:  neceffary  ?  Circumcifion  \i\*:^  to  be  neceffary  for 
{'.ood  men  :  Why  not  now  ?  According  to  this  interpretation,  ex- 
lernal  ordinances  ars  not  needful  for  t:ae  chrilHins,  but  only  for  fin- 

ncrs. 


r  3x  1 


ncrs.  Thofe  among  the  ColoiTians,  who  were  not  Aire  they  had  receiv- 
ed the/piruualcircumciiio'n,  could  no:  apply  ihis  argument  ;  and  there- 
fore, according  to  oar  author,  rauil  Hill  obfervf  .the  ///^rd/circumcifion, 
Befides  ;  the  fanne  argument  would  prove,  that  they  need  not  be  bap. 
tired  ;  for  if  they  had  received  the  fpiritual  waftiing  of  fandificatioo, 
tvhat  occafion  was  there  for  the  literal  wafhing  of  baptifm  ?  And  yet, 
according  to  him,  none  mud  be  baptized,  but  actual  believers  ;  fo 
that,  if  we  admit  his  conilrudion  of  the  paffage,  wc  mull  difallow  of 
all  baptifm. 

Our  author  fays,  *  lo  the  Apoftles  days,   the   chriftians  converted 

*  from  Judaifm  were  zealous  to  incorporate  circumcifion  with  chrift- 

*  ianity. — Do  the  Apoft'es  inftru(5l  them,   that  they  need  not  be  (o  tc- 

*  nacious  oi  onerighty  fince  another  is  appointed  in  itsjlead  ?  Such  an 
'  obfervation  would  have  been  much  to  the  purpofe — but  nothing  caa 

*  be  found  of  it  in  their  reafonings  to  diffuade  chriftian*  from  circum- 
'  cifion.' 

But  the  gentleman  is  under  a  great  miftake.  The  Jeroijh  converts 
were  zealous  to  incorporate,  not  meerly  circumcifion,  bat  the  whole 
ceremonial  law,  with  chriftianity.  They  contended  for  circumcifion 
as  a  rite  binding  to  the  obfervancc  of  the  whole  law,  without  which, 
they  imagined,  chriftianity  weald  be  incomplete.  From  this  noiion 
P^z«/ labors  to  bring  them  ciF.  He  does  not  cppofe  circumcifion /zw//y  ; 
if  he  had,  he  would  not  have  circumcifed  Timothy  ;  but  he  oppofed  it, 
in  the  Je'wijh  fenfe,  as  binding  men  to  keep  the  ceremonial  law  ia 
order  to  acceptance  with  God.  Though  he  had,  upon  prudential 
reafons,  circumcifed  Timoihy,  yet  he  gave  no  place  to  thofe  who  woald 
compel  Titus  to  be  circnmcifed,  that  they  might  briug  him  and  cthcra 
into  bondage  to  the  law.  Now  what  argument  docs  he  ofc  to  diffuade 
them  from  circumcision,  and  the  obfervance  of  the  law  ?  It  is  this  ; 
They  had  received  oaptifm^  the  chrifti^n  circumcifion,  and  were  now- 
bound  to  obey  the  gofpel  ;  which  being  a  complete  inltitotion,  had 
fuperceded  the  law.  Thus  he  reafons  with  the  Colcjtans  in  the  place 
before  referred  to.  Be-juare  lejl  any  man  fpoil you  through  phihfcphy  c^d 
'vain  deceit,  after  the  rudiments  of  tJn  tv'orld  and  not  after  ChtTfi^-for  %t 
tire  complete  in  him,  and  fo  need  not  add  the  ritual  law  to  his  gofpel  ; 
in  r.vhom  ye  are  circumcijcd — ^Mith  the  circumcifion  of  Chrij},  or  chrilliai 
circumcifion,  being  buried  luith  him  in  baptifm. -^Wherefore  if  ye  hi 
dead  ^with  Chriji from  the  rudiments  of  the  iMorld  ;  if  by  baprifm  into 
his  death  ye  are  freed  Uova  the  rites  of  the  mofaic  difpenfaiion,  tvty, 
as  though  living  in  the  -Ji<or!dyOr  under  that  difpenfation ,  are  ye  fuhjtS 
to  ordinance^?  You  fee,  that  the  Apoftie  urges  their  baptifm  into 
Chrift,  as  a  reafon  why  they  fhould  no  more  be  fubjcfl  to  circcmcifion 

AJli 


[     3^    i 

a.n<3  the  ritci  of  ihe  ceremonial  law.  He  ufei  the  very  argument  .tc> 
difTuade  ihcm  from  circumeifion,  which  this  author  fays,  he  would  ufe, 
ifbaptifm  came  ia  its  place  :  And  therefore,  by  his  own  conceffion, 
baptifm  does  come  in  its  place.  And  if  fo,  then  it  is  undeniably  to 
be  administered  to  the  fame  fubjedls,  even  the  infants  of  believing  par- 
ents. 

We  arc  told,*  that  fome  of  the  believing  j^e'ws  at  'Jerufahm  were 
much  difplcafcd,  when  they  heard  that  Pa^/ laught  the  ^rrt/,  who 
were  among  the  Gentiles,  that  they  ought  not  to  circurkcifc  their  child' 
ten.  Would  it  have  fatiisfied  (4ich  zealous  contenders  for  infant  cir« 
tumcifion,  to  have  told  them,  baptiica  now  came  in  the  place  of  that 
ancient  ceremony,  but  yet  muftnot  be  applied  to  their  children  ?  Thit 
would  but  have  provoked  them  the  more.  Had  it  not  been  the  ufagc 
of  the  apoftles  to  admit  children  with  their  parents  into  covenant  by 
baptifm,  certainly  the  Jen^;s,  among  other  objedions  againft  the  gof-* 
pel,  would  have  urged  this,  that  it  excluded  their  children  from  cove- 
nant privileges.  They  were  apt  enough  to  make  objedlions,  and  fincc 
wc  find  none  of  this  fort,  we  miy  conclude,  there  Was  no  room  for  any. 

Th::t  infants,  under  the  patriarchal  ^nd  »jr/flrV  difpenfations,  werd 
admitted  into  covenant  by  a  particular  token,  is  certain.  Itisevi- 
<Icnt,  this  was  confidercd  ds  a  privilege.  It  is  allowed,  that  the  gof- 
pel  confers  greater  privileges  than  former  difpenfations  :  Bat  if  child- 
ren are  now  fhut  out  of  covenant,  then  the  gofpel,  inftead  of  enlarge 
i/)g,  has  in  this  rcfpeft  diminifhed  our  privileges. 

But  fays  our  autTior,  *  The  infallibility  of  the  Roman  church  may  bft 

•  proved  in  the  fame  manner  ;  as  thus  :    The  people  of  God  under  the 

•  Old-Teftament    enjoyed    the   benefit    of   infallibility.     The  high 

•  Priefl  had  the    Urim  and   Thumraim,   by  which   the  mind  of  God 

•  was  known,  &c.  confcquently  there  muft  be  infallibility  in  the  chrill- 

•  ian  church  ;  otherwife  the  lefj  perfeft  dlfpcnfatiofl  oi  Mo/es  will  have 
'  a  great  privilege  beyond  the  chrljiian.* 

The  truth  is.  The  chrijlian  difpenfation  has  this  privilege  far 
beyond  the  mofaic.  The  additional  revelation  of  the  gofpel  difcov- 
ers  the  raind  of  Goi  as  infallibly,  and  far  more  fjlly  and  extenfively 
than  ever  it  was  difcove^-ed  by  Urim  and  Thummim.—Such  Dccafien- 
c/difcoveries  now  arc  not  needed,  fince  we  have  a  ctmplete,  ftandtni 
reveiatioo. 

The  author  of  the  letters  tells  as.  that  circcmcifion,  '  that  Old  Teft- 

•  anient  rite,  was  a  uftUfs,  burthenfome ,  mjuncut  ceremony,  and  trcat- 

•  ed  as  fuch  by  the  Aponies.'  And  hence  he  concludes,  baptifm  can- 
not come  in  its  room  to  be  adminiftered  to  infants,  as  that  was.    But 

wkcre 

•  Aa.  %t.  n. 


r  53  1 

>frhfre  dt)  the  Apoftles  treat  tircumcifion  in  this  manner  ?  The  ce}4^ 
honial  laiv  indeed  is  confidered  as  a  yoke  of  bondage  ;  as  burthen^ 
fomej  not  injuriousy  for  it  would  ill  become  llie  te.ichers  of  religion  ta 
reprefent  God  as  injuring  his  people  by  his  inftitutions  :  Dut  circuM' 
<i-/fon,  confidered  as  a  token  of  the  covenant,  is  treated  as  a  great 
privilege.*  What  advantage  hath  the'Jenxt?  And  ivhat  prof.t  js  then 
of  circumcijion  ?  Much  e'very  <\vAy.  It  was  a  greac  privilege  for  the 
children  oijcxvs  \o  have  God  for  their  God,  in  fuch  a  fcnfc  as  he  tvas 
not  the  God  o^  he  at  he  k  rhildren  ;  to  be  born  td  the  enjoynicat  of  ihe 
oracles  and  ordinances  of  God  ;  and  to  be  under  the  care  of  parents, 
who  were  lolemn.'y  bound  to  bring  ihrnt  up  in  the  knowl(?dge  and  fer- 
vice  of  the  God  oi  Ij'rael.  And  if  the  proht  of  drcumcifion  was  muc^ 
evsry^^'^y*  th^n  the  Icis  by  its  abolition  is  much  every  ivaj^  unlcfi  ihcci 
be  fomeihing  appointed  in  its  room. 

It  is  often  faid,^  Circumcifion  was  applied  only  to  maJes :  EapiifaA 
«  is  defigned  for  both  fexes,  therefore  they  are  not  parallel  ordi- 
•  Dances,  nor  can  we  argue  from  the  one  to  the  other.* 

But  it  is  certain,  they  are  parallel  in  th(^ir  muin  defign,  as  initiat- 
ing feals  of  the  fanie  covenant.  And/emal'es  were  admitted  into  cov- 
enant, as  well  as  males,  though  no  vifible  token  was  appointed  for 
therti.  Every  frJ^'Sorn  maile  was  to  be  publicly  prefchted  to  God  in 
token  of  the  obligation  of  the  '•jsholefamily  to  be  holy  to^iini  ;  for  if 
the firfi  fruits  he  holy,  fo  is  the  lump.  So  the  parent's  dedicating  his 
fndles  to  God  by  CircUmcifion,  was  a  token  that  all  hh  children  be 
longed  to  God.  Accordingly  God  ee[ual!y  claims  an  intereP.  in  child- 
reti  of  both  kxQ$,  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  relation  of  their  parents. 
God  fays  to  the  J^w//^  church,  Ezfk.  \6.  7.  I  entered  into  cozenani 
nvtth  thee,  and  thou  hscamej}  mine.  And  then  he  complains,  ver.  20, 
Thou  hafl  taken  thy  fons  and  thy  daughters,  'which  thou  hafl  tern  u  n  to 
M  E  ,  and  thefe  thou  haji  facrijicecl.  Thou  ho  ft  fain  my  children. 
So  Deut.  29.  10.  Ye  ft  and  this  day  before  the  Lord — all  tie  men  oflfra^ 
el, your  little  ones,  eoid your  wives,  that  thoufhouldft  enter  into  covenant, 
that  he  may  be  unto  thee  a  Cod — as  he  hath  fxoorn  to  Abraham.  The/ 
were  all  admr.ied  into  covenant,  though  the  male:  only  received  the 
vifible  token.  But  under  th^  gofpel  there  is  no  diftinili'on  of  mdlc 
and  female,  but  all  are  one  in  Chriff,  the  vifible  fcal  being  affixed  tc* 
one  as  well  as  the  other.  In  this  refpcft  the  gofpel  difpen/ation  i» 
more  large  and  free  than  the  former,  that  it  makes  no  dininflion  of 
nation  ox  f ex .  And  Ihall  we  think  it  was  intended  to  be  coniradcd  \^ 
another  refpeft,  by  cafticiing  ^?//<-/^/A//y.';,  who  a<e  more  than  half 
cf  mankind  }  Tb^ 

E 
^  J^om.  3.  f. 


r  o4  1 

"^he  author  before  mcnt'oRcd  tells  us,  that  '  children  were  admitted 
:o  the  paflbver  ;  and  hence  wc  may  infer  their  fight  to  the  Lord's  Tap- 
per ;  as  wc!l  as  from  their  circumctficn  infer  their  right  to  bapiifm.' 
It  fcemi  probable,  that  perfons  of  all  ages  partook  of  ihe /r^  pafl% 
over  mentioned  Exod.  12.  which  was  in  fomc  refpcds  fingular,  and 
difTercnt  from  fuccecding  psfT'jvers.  Bui  it  appears  from  Luke  2.  42. 
that  ic  was  not  the  eujiom  of  the  feajl^  for  parents  to  bring  their  child- 
ren to  it,  until  they  were  about  i'welve years  old  ;  at  which  age,  they 
inighr  be  able  to  enquire  of  their  parents.  What  meanye  by  this  fir- 
*vice  ?  And  at  this  age,  no  doubt,  many  are  capable  of  undcrftanding 
the  nature  and  end  of  the  Lord's  fupper.*  But 

•  <  Children  at  the  age  of  12  years,  were  brought  by  their  parents  to  the 
'  temple  :  And  from  that  time  they  began  to  eat  of  the  pafTover  and  oihtr 
«  facrifices.  Hyrcanus  in  Jofcphus,  B.  12.  Chap.  4.  (ays,  The  Jewifli  law 
^forbids  the  fon  to  cat  of  the    facrifices,    before  he  has  come  to  the  temple, 

*  and  there  himfclf  prefentcd  an  offering  to  God.*     (Pol.    Synop.  in  Exod, 
11.   26  ) 

The  law  prcfcrlbed,  that  when  the  Jews  were  come  into  the  land,  which 
God  would  give  them,  all  their  males  fliould  appear  before  him  every  year 
at  the  pafTover,  in  the  j»lacc  which  he  appointed.  But  it  is  added,  7 bey /hail 
not  appear  before  me  empty y  but  e^-jcry  one  according  to  tbe  gft  of  bis  band, 
(Dcut.  16.  16.  and  alibi,  vide.  Marg.) 

The  male,  or  men  children,  who  were  to  appear  before  God,  In  their  ap- 
pointed plJce,  JO  eat  of  the  palTover,  were  only  fuch  as  could  bring  a  gift  in 
their  hand  j  or  prefcnt  an  offering  for  themfclves.  I'his  probably  is  the 
law  to  which  Hyreanus  alludes.  Bp.  Patrick,  who  was  very  leained  in  the 
Jewifh  laws  and  cuftoms,  fays,  «  When  children  were  12  years  old,  their  pa- 

*  rents  were  bound  to  bring  them  to  ilie  temple,  at  the  pafTover,    where,  ^^c- 
<  ing  what  was  done  in  this  feflivai,  they  would  be  ltd  K)  enquire  what  mean 

*  ye  by  this  fervicc  ?'  (Comment,  in  Exod.  ij.) 

Ai  the  end  of  the  padovci-  was  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  the  deliverance 
from  Kgypr,  and  as  the  exprefs  reafcn  why  children  were  to  attend  it  in  the 
appointed  place,  was  that  they  might  be  inflruRed  in  that  wonderful  dcl:?er- 
ance,  i)arcnts  could  not  view  themfclves  as  bound  to  bring  their  children  to 
the  folemniiy,  before  they  were  capable  of  enquiring  and  iinderflanding  whit 
was  meant  by  it.  Luke  tells  us,  (Chap,  2.  42.)  that  the  parents  of  Jefut 
went  up  eveiy  year  to  Jcfufalem  at  the  feart  of  the  pafTover  :  and  wl)cn  he 
was  IX  years  cU,  they  went  up  a/ler  the  cuJlom  of  the  feaji.  Their  going 
after  tie  cxtjlom  of  the  feaf,  doubtlcfs  intends  their  taking  their  fon  with 
tliem,  who  wis  now  1  z  yea:  s  old  :  for  it  appears  that  he  accom^^anied  ihcin  ; 
and  ihi^.  it  the  firfl  lime  wc  hear  of  his  going  to  the  feftival.  It  miy  alfo  be 
obleived,  that  xhz  males  only  were  required  to  appear  b.fore  G^d  at  the 
pafTover  i  and  none  c«n  ima^;ine,  that  infants  and  fucklings  were  taken 
from  their  mothers  arms  to  be  carried  to,  and  detained  at  the  temple,  during 
tUc  c  !.t  nmnce  of  fo  long  a  fi/lemnity. 


[     35     ] 

But  if  infants  had  been  ufually  admitted  to  the  paffover,  it  wou^d 
rot  in  the  leall  weaken  our  argument  from  circumcifion  ;  for  the  paff- 
over  was  not  a  feal  of  the  Ahrahamlc  covenant  (it  being  appointed 
xno»e  than  400  years  after  that  covenant  was  made)  but  ore  of  the 
mofaic  rites.  Now  the  ritual  law  is  fuperfeded  by  the  gofpcl  ;  bi^ 
the -r^i^z-^-^/zw/V  covenant  remains.  The  Lord's  fopper  is  a  commemo- 
rative fign,  intended  to  Ihew  forth  Chrift's  death  and  bring  him  to 
our  remembrance.  Cot  baptilm  is  a  token  of  admiifjon  to  the  via- 
ble privileges  of  God's  people  ;  and  therefore  infants  are  capable  of 
ihisy  though  not  of  the  other. 

Some  perhaps  will  afl:.  How  could  baptifm  come  in  place  cf 
ciiC'jmcifion,  when  ic  appears  to  have  been  in  trfe  before  circumcifiott 
ceafed  ?  Let  me  afk  ano  her  queftlon.  How  could  Solomon  reign  id 

the  place  of  Da<vi^  ^s  his  fuccefTor,  when  he  began  to  rtign  before 
Daviii W!is  dead  ?  There  is  no  more  difficulty  in  one  qucftion,  than  in 
the  other.  Though  baptifm  was  in  ufe,  yet  it  was  not  made  the  pe- 
culiar initiating  feal  of  the  gofpel-covenant  until  after  Chrifl's  refur- 
je«^ion. 

It  has  been  enquired,  'If  baptifm  fucceeds  circumcifion,  why  were 
«  thofe  baptized,    who   had  already  been  circumcifed  ?'     We  anfwcr, 

1.  We  think  i^  has  been  proved,  that  both  thefe  ordinances  were 
inftituted  as  feals  of  the  fame  gracious  covenant  ;  and  therefore  the 
right  of  infants  to  baptifm  will  not  at  all  depend  on  the  «foluiion  of 
this  queflion: 

2.  It  does  not  appear  to  be  a  fa^,  that  circumcifed  believers  were 
uni^erfally  baptized.  That  the  firfl  difciples  were  baptized,  we  have 
no  evidence.  That  the  fjjel've  partook  of  the  firft  fupper,  before 
chrillian  baptifm  was  fo  much  as  inftituted^  is  undeniable  ;  for  it  is 
evident  from  Ads  19.  5.  and  the  author  of  the  letters  himfelf  con- 
cedes, that  John's  baptifm  was  not  chrijlian  baptifm.  Now  if  circum- 
cifion was,  in  the  cafe  of  the  difciples,  fufficient  for  their  admiflion  to 
the  great  gofpel-ordinance  of  the  fupper,  then  certainly  it  was  a  ftal 
of  the  golpel-covenant  ;  and  therefore  the  baptifm  of  believers,  al- 
ready circumcifed,  was  a  matter,  not  of  univerfal  neceflity,  but  only 
pf  particular  expedience.  It  feems  to  have  taken  place  chltfly  in  the 
safe  of  the  Jews,  who,  after  Chrill's  rcfarreaion,  had  fur  a  time  open- 
ly oppof:rd  the  gofpel,  and  the  fuperior  evidence  which  then  attended 
ID.         Now, 

3.  There  was  a  manifeft  propriety  in  baptizingyflw^  who  had  beea 

circumcifed,  although  baptifm  and  circumcifion  arc  fuppofcd  to  be  feals 

\ii  the  fame  covenant.  _ 

The 


t     3C     J 

The  long  expelled  MefTuh  had  now  appeared  ;  a  clearer  difpenf^- 
(ion  of  ihc  covenant  of  grace,  attended  with  larger  prcmifes  and  more 
liberal  pnvilrges,  v^as  now   introduced  ;  ihe    way  was  opened  for    the 
•dmiiTiDn  of  all  natio'^-s  into  the  church  of  God  ;   and  bapiiTm  was  in- 
ilitutcd  to  be  a  feai  ot  the  covenant,    and  a  badge  of  diftlnftion  be- 
tween the   .  hurch   and  the  unbelieving  world.     Though  circumcifioti 
had  been,    and  ftiU  might   be  a  mark  of  direrlrnlnaiion  bi.nv»ecn  ih« 
wor(hipp<Jrs  of  the  true  God  and  idolatrous  heathens,  yet,  alter  the  in- 
ilituiion  of  baptifro,  the  former  rite  would  not  focleaily  difcriroinate 
between  chriftians  and  unbelievers  in   geueral  ;    for  unbelieving  Jews 
\»ould    llili  ufe  circumciuon.     It  v>i2i  therefore  proper,    that  the   cir- 
cumcifed  Jew,  when  he  embraced  the  gof pel,  efpeciaily  If  he  had  be. 
fore  openly  oppofed  it,    fnould  lubrail  to  baptifm,    to  leftify  his  belief 
that  JeCus  of  Nazareth,  whom  he  had  rcjedled,  was  tl.e  prurriifed  Mef- 
fiah  ;  that  the  dodrine  preached  by  the  apollles,  in  his  name,  was  di- 
vine ;   and  that  the  ancient  diliindiion  of   J-w  and  Gentile,  male  and 
female,  was  abolilhed,  and  all  were  to  be;ome  one  in  ChrilK  Had  Ko;;e 
of  the  believing  Jews  been  baptized,   there  might  have  remained  too 
great  an  appearance  of  a  diltinftion  between  ihm  and  ge/iule  believ- 
ers ;   a  diliindion  which,  after  all,  many  of  the  Jewifli  chrillians  were 
Urongly  inclined  to  preferve,    and  which  the  apollles  were  no  lefs  fo- 
licitoui  to  extinquifn.     It  was  Chriit's  defign,  that  his  chorch   fhould 
be,  and  appear  to  be  one  ;    that,   while   it  was  dillinguifhed  from  the 
world,   it   (hou!d  harmon  zc  with  itl'elf,    and  keep  a  unity  of  fpirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace. 

Suppofc  a  prince,  who  had  appointed  a  particular  uniform  for  his 
folJiers,  Ihould  think  proper,  on  the  introduQion  of  a  new  difcipline, 
and  the  atquiktion  of  new  fubje^ls,  to  appoint  for  thtj'e  another  uni- 
form ;  might  we  not  expcd^,  that  he  would  allow,  and  in  cafe  of  a  re- 
bellion raifcdon  this  occafion,  would  require  many  of  his /brwrr  fub- 
jclIs  to  ailqp*  the  fame,  that  there  might  be  no  diftindion  kept  up  be- 
tween old  fubjcds  and  new,  but  ail  might  become  one  harmanious  bo- 
dy ?  And  would  any  man,  in  this  cafe,  imagine  that  the  new  livery 
came  rot  in  the  place  of  the  old  ?  Or  that  the  one  had  not  been,  as 
the  o.hcr  wai  now,  a  badge  and  token  of  allegiance  ? — No  more 
can  we,  on  this  grJunJ,  pretend,  that  baptifm  fuccceds  not  in  the  place 
of  circumcihon. 

It  will  perhaps  be  aCced  ;  *  Vv'hy  then  ought  not  baptifm  to  be  x^- 
*  miniftered  en   the  eighth    day    according   to  the    law   of  cir;umci- 

•  fion  r 

We  anfwer  ;  It  was  not  rffcntial  io  \\ie  <v alt ditj  of  circumcifion 
z\zK  it   fliould  be    adminiftcrtd  on  the  eighth  diiy.     It  was  not  to  be 

delayed 


C    37    ] 

Relayed  beyond  that  day  without  occafion  ;  nor  ought  we,  without  oc- 
cafion,  to  delay  baptifm.  But  where  circumftances  admitted  not  fci 
early  an  application  of  the  fcal,  the  delay  was  not  faulty  then,  nor 
would  it  be  now.  Circumciflon,  indeed,  might  not  be  performed 
earlier  than  the  eighth  day  :  but  fo-r  this  delay  there  were  particular 
reafons,  not  applicable  to  baptiun*  One  rcafon  might  be  the  ten- 
dernefs  of  the  infant,  and  the  weaknefs  of  the  mother,  which  would 
render  an  immediate  operation  of  this  kind  dangerous  to  both.  But 
the  principal  rcafon  was  the  legal  impurity  of  the  mother,  and  the 
confequent  impurity  of  the  child  for  the  firll  feven  days.  This  rcafoa 
is  exprefsly  ailigned  in  the  divine  law  ;*  If  a  iv$man  han^e  bora  a  man^ 
(hiUyJ/:ie  Jlyali  be  unclean  ffutn  days-'-*-and  sn  tke'eighth  day  he  Jhali  be  cir* 
cumcifed^  But  as  the  legal  impurities  have  ceaieJ  under  the  gofpel, 
there  is  no  fuch  reafon  for  the  delay  of  baptifm. 

Thus,  I  think,  it  undeniably  appears,  that  baptifm  ftands  in  tha 
place  of  circumcifion,  and  that  the  arguments  to  the  contrary,  are  fu- 
tile and  impertinent.  And  if  it  ftands  in  the  fame  pl^ce,  it  is  cer- 
tainly to  be  applied  to  the  fame  fubjefts,  the  infants  of  God's  pcOy 
ple.«— I  proceed  to  another  argument. 


"^SSSSIS^^ 


PISCOURSE     III. 


^.'  I  ^HE  light  of  infants  to  baptifm  may  be  clearly  inferred  froi 
JL      the    words   of  our    Saviour,  Mark  lo.  14.   compared    wii 


fron) 
ifh 

thofe,  John  3.5.  •S'^^r  little  children  to  cane  to  me-'-for  of  fuch  is  the 
kingdom  of  God. — And,  Except  a  man  [iccv  ^l  t;j,  except  any  one) 
he  born  of  ivater  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 
By  the  kingdom  of  God  muft  be  underftood  either  the  Church,  God's 
vifible  kingdom  on  earth  ;  dx  liea^jen,  his  invlfible  kingdom  above. 
Into  the  former  we  arc  admitted  by  baptifm,  which  is  the  fign  of  that 
fplritual  renovation,  by  which  we  are  prepared  ("or  the  latmr.  Theie 
li:tle  children  are  called  infants  ;  they  were  brought  to  Chrill  ;  were 
taken  up  in  his  arms  ;  doubtlefs  therefore  they  were  upder  the  age  of 
difcretion.  They  who  brought  them  were /r//>:  ^rs  ;  ouierwife  they 
would  not  have  fought  a  ble/JI-g  from  Chrift  for  them.  The  phraje 
being  born  cf  'water ^   llgnifies  being  baptized  :    So  the  author  of  the 

IctLfrs 

*  Levit.  12.  I.  s. 


C     38     ] 

letters  anderftands  it,   aad  numbers  it  among  the  pafTages  that  fpeal^ 

ofbaptifm.* 

Now  if",  by  the  kingdom  of  God t  we  nnderftand  the  church,  then  here 
b  an  exprefs  declaration^  that  infants  belong  to  the  church,  are 
Chrift's  difciples  and  vifjble  members  of  his  body  :  And  conreqocat- 
J»  have  a  right  to /^/>///'//»,  the  only  inftiiuted  fign  of  admiirico  into 
this  kingdom.  Except  any  one  he  born  oftuatery  ht  cannot  enter  inta 
ibis  kingdom.  Hence  the  chrillian  church  13  faid  to  be  cleanjed  hy  tht 
tiua'hing  of  -water  f  If  by  the  kingdom  of  God,  we  underlland  mc  in* 
tvijible  kingdom  above,  then  here  is  a  plain  declaration,  thai  infants 
belong  to  that,  and  confequently  may  be  born  of  the  Jpirtt  ;  fjr  except 
snt  bi  born  of  the /pint,  be  cannot  enter  into  that  kingdom,  wh  ch  fJclh 
and  Wood  do  not  inherit.  And  if  they  may  be  Lorn  of  the  Jpirit, 
doubtlefs  they  may  be  born  of  ^watery  or  baptized.  As  the  church 
is  x\ic  gate  of  heaven,  fo  baptifin  is  i\\efign  of  regeneration.  And  if 
they  m^y  be  admitted  into  heaven  by  regeneration,  they  may  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Q\\u\Q.\i  by  baptifm.  U  the  things  fignifed  belo'g  tq 
them,  the  ^gn  and  token  mull  be  foppofed  to  belong  to  them.  The 
Apoftle  Peter.X  plainly  teaches  us,  that  they,  to  whom  the  promife  of 
the  fpirit  pertains,  have  a  right  to  baptlfm,  the  fj^n  of  the  promiCc. 
In  whatever  fenfc  therefore  we  underftand  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  con^ 
dufion  is  the  fame.  That  infants  are  fubjedls  of  baptifia. 

It  cannot  reafonably  be  faid,  that  the  words — of  Juch — intend  only 
perfons  of  a  childlike  difpofiiion  :  For  then  how  would  this  be  a  rea- 
fon  why  little  children  ihould  be  brought  to  Chrid,  and  why  he  (hould 
be  difplcafed  wiih  his  difciples  for  endeavoring  to  hinder  them  ?  This 
makes  our  Lord's  argument  run  thus.  Suffer  infants  to  be  brought  to 
me,  for  my  kingdom  confiftethtf/j/y  of  adult  perfons  rcfembling  child- 
ren in  their  difpofition.  He  elfcwhere  makes  Law^j  and /^o-i;// em- 
blems of  a  chrillian  temper  ;  and  according  to  this  interpretation,  he 
wight  as  well  have  faid,  Suffer  Lambs  and  Dorjis  to  come  to  me,  for 
of  fuch  it  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  i.  e.  it  confiiU  of  perfons  cf  a  larah- 
l.kc  and  dove-like  temper.  Well, 

•  The  author  of  the  letters  fays,  *  Chriftianbaptifm  was  not  yet  inftifut- 
♦d.*  This  i>  doiihtlcfs  true  :  but  John  preached,  faying,  The  kingdom  of 
Cod  is  at  hand  ;  and  he  biptizcd  with  the  baptifm  of  re|)entancc  to  prepare 
ihc  people  for  this  kinj^dom.  It  was  therefore  very  feafonablc  for  Chnit  nowr 
Jo  iniUurt  Sicodemns,  thai  baptifm,  or  being  born  of  ivatery  was  foon  to  be 
the  riie  of  admiflion  into  his  kingdom.  But  whelh  r  we  underfland  tho 
phrafe,  of  outivard  baptifm,  or  inward  lanflificaticn,  our  argument  from  it 
Tvill  be  equally  conclufjve. 

+  %h.  5.   a6.  I  Aa.  1.   38. 


t  51  ! 


Well,  'but  itie  cKriftian  rite  of  baptifm  was  not  given  to  tliefccliiTw 
*dren,  they  were  bro't  to  Chrift  for  his  blcffing  and  prayers,  accom* 
*  panied  uith  impofition  of  hands.*  Troe  :  But  our  Saviour  declares, 
that  fach,  i.  e.  the  infants  of  believers,  belong  to  this  kingdom,  into 
which  none  are  admitted,  but  by  being  hm  of  ivater  ;  fo  that  here 
IS  a  plain  declaration,  that  infants  were  to  be  introduced  into  this 
church  by  baptifm.  And  by  taking  them  into  his  arms,  praying  for 
them,  and  bleifing  them,  he  fhewed  ihaty«f/&  arc  capable  {ubje«^s  of 
the  influence  and  bleffing  of  the  Spirit,  which  are  the  things  reprefent- 
ed  in  baptifm.  He  did  not  pour  water  on  them  ;  but  he  performed 
a  cereiBony  quite  as  facred  and  folemn,  and  thus  (hewed,  that  infants 
are  meet  fubjedls  of  that  external  rite,  which  denotes  the  conveyance 
of  fpiritual  bleffings,  and  fuch  a  rite  is   the   ordinance  of  baptifm. 

4  The  baptifmal  commiflion.  Mat.  28.  19.  gives  a  plain  warrant  for 
admitting  infants  to  baptifm.  It  runs  thus.  Go,  and  teach  all  naticm, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghojly  teaching 
them  to  ob/ernje,  ccc.  • 

Some  will  fay,  ■*  Infants  are  not  exprefsly  mentioned  here.*  True  : 
neither  are  Adults.  But  Chrift  ufes  the  word,  nations,  which  is  a  col- 
Icdiv€  terra,  and  muft  naturally  be  underftood  as  including  both. 
And  had  he  intended  to  teacli  his  Apoftles,  that  perfons  of  every  age 
muft  be  admitted  to  baptifm,  he  could  not  have  chofen  any  finglc 
word  to  exprefs  it  better.  Baptize  all  nations.  The  chrillian  church  is 
called  a  nation,  2i  people y  becaufe  it  confifts  of  perfons  of  every  age.* 

But  it  is  objefted  ;  *  Teaching  is  required  previous  to  baptifm,  whick 
infants  are  not  capable  of.' 

Here  let  it  beobferved,  that  the  word  /uaOrru^'itTf  rendered  T^ach, 
is  not  the  fame  which  \s  commonly  ufed  for  teachings  but  of  a  more 
general  fignification.  The  proper  import  of  it  is,  to  profelyte  or  make 
difciples.  The  commiflion  then  is  this.  Ga,  dijciple  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them — teaching  them  to  shfewe  all  things y  &c.  Here  are  two  words 
in  the  commiflion  rendered,  Teaching.  The  latter  ^KTao-goj/Tf;,  fignifics 
10  indoSlrinate  ;  the  other  is  more  general,  and  fignifies  10  make  dif 
ciples,  which  may  be  done  by  introdudion  into  a  fchool  in  order  to 
future  teaching. 

Now  if  we  can  Ih^w,  that  Infants  are  ever  confidered  as  dijciples — as 
belonging  to  ChriJIy  then  it  will  appear  that  they  come  within  the  com- 
miflion, Difciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them.  Wc  arc  told  Mat.  18.  5. 
That  Jcfu?  haying  fet  a  little  child  be/ore  him,  faid,  Hljofe-jer  Jhall  re^ 
<ii've  one  fuch  little  cbild  i^  my  n^tn^  rcceivefh  me.     To  icccive  one  iVr 

Chnf'j 
•  I  Pef.  z.  9. 


f  ^*  1 


^hrlji\  nomt^  is  to  receive  him  as  being  Cbriji^j  difdple  and  as  hdofi''^^ 
10  him.  So  ihcphrafc  is  explained,  Mark  9  41.  Whrfoccer  fijall gvjt 
jou  a  cup  o/njuater  in  my  Name,  becaufe ye  belong  to  Chrift.  And  Mat. 
XO.  42.  H'Hojoeijer  Jhail gi've  to  one  of  ihe/e  title  on?,  a  cup  of  nx: titer  only  ill 
the  name  of  a  dilciplc  y^tf//»o/  lofe  his  rewnrd,  1:  is  plain  here  ihal 
infants,  who  are  to  be  received  in  Chixfi's  name  may  Le  hU  diftipUs  and 
belong  to  him f  to  his  church  and  kingdom.  Accordingly  ihey  who  con- 
tended, ihat  perfons  under  the  gofpel  oughi  10  be  circumcifed  after 
ihc  manner  of  Mofes^  arc  faid  to  tetnpt  God  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  necks  of 
the  difciples,  Adl.  15.  10.  Infants  were  to  be  circumcifed  after  the 
xnanner  of  Mcfes,  and  therefore  are  comprehended  among  the  dijciples^ 
on  whom  the  yoke  would  be  laid.  The  commifljon  then  muft  refpeft 
infanti  as  well  as  others.  The  Apoftles  had  before  been  inlUudicd 
to  receive  nol  only  adults,  but  alfo  little  children  in  Chrif's  name* 
and  as  his  dfiples.  Now  a  pariicalar  rite  is  appointed,  by  which 
ihey  fhould  receive  or  difciple  them  in  his  name.  Dijciple  all  nations^ 
laptizif^  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father ^  and  ef  the  Son,  t^fc. 

But  the  author  of  the  letiera  fays,   *  The  difciples  of  Chrift,   during 

*  his  miniftry  en  earth,  a?  wdl  as  the  difciples  of  John,  were  well  ac« 

*  quainied  wiih  the  inftitution  of  baptifm,    for  they  baptized  great 

*  multitudes  ;   but  th;y  adrainiilercd  a    baptifm  in  which  infants  had 

*  no  part.     When  therefore  our  Lord    inllituted  bis  facrament  of  bap- 

*  tifm,  if  infants  were  to  be  received  into  it,  it  cannot  be  dotbteci 
'  but  he  declared  this  ;  oiherwife  men,   who  had  been  ufed  to  exclude 

*  infants,  would  no:  think  of  thera  as  coming  within  this  frcfh  com- 

*  million.' 

He  exprefsly  allows,  that  the  Apoftles  would  be  deter.iiined  very 
iiuch  by  former  ufages,  in  judging  whether  infants  came  within  this 
coramiffion.  Wheiher  the  difciples  of  John  and  of  Chrill  had  been 
Wont  to  baptize  infants,  it  is  not  exprefsly  faid.  And  therefore  to 
judge  how  the  Apofllcs  would  underlland  their  commiflion,  we  muft 
go  farther  back  than  to  Jchn\  niiniilry.  Thefe  Apoflles  were  jc^'s. 
They  had  been  educated  in  the  yrat//^  religion.  They  knew,  that 
from  the  days  of  Abraham,  and  all  along  through  the  msfaic  difpenfa- 
lion,  jnfanti  had  been  taken  into  covencnt  with  their  parents  by  the 
f-me  iniiiatiug  rite. — They  knew  this  had  ever  been  cftcemed  a  great 
privilege;  and  they  would  naturally  fiippofe,  the  privilege  was  ftill  to 
continue,  as  the  Abrchamic  covenant  was  yet  in  force.  They  knew  it 
had  been  the  conftant  immemorial  prad^ite  of  the  fevjijh  church,  to 
receive  ^rn'//r  profciytes  and  their  infant  children  with  them  by  bap- 
fifm.  Tbi»  the  anciert  Jt\K'iJh  writers  teflify.  Baptifm,  we  know; 
WW  no  i»ew  thing  10  ^cbn'\  time.     The  J'rTcj   appear  to  have  becrt 

irolJ 


[     4t     j 

vtfll  ficquainted  wttri  it.  Tbey  don't  afk  hJm,  What  meaneft  than  t>^ 
this  ne'vo  ceremony  ?  But  ivhy  haptixeji  thou,  if  thou  art  not  the  £hrijt^ 
nor  Eliasy  nor  that  PrcpJ*cl  ?  Their  quellion  implies,  that  the  Prophet: 
had  been  wont  to  baptize,  and  ihey  expe(npd  Chrtjl  and  Elias  would  do 
the  fame.  John ^roh^hXy  took  up  baptifm,  as  he  found  it  pradlifed  ia 
the  ^f'-u?/^^  church,  whc.>-e  it  had  brcn  conHantly  adminiftered  to  ihe 
f>/^i?/j  of^^*///V  profelyte^.  Ani  it  is,  not  only  without  proof,  but 
againrt  probability,  that  this  author  aflerts,  *  Infants  had  no  part  in 
Johns  baptifm.'  Farther,  thefe  Apcltlcs  had  been  taught  to  lock 
upon  infants  as  hehn^iff^  to  Chrijiy  ^nd  to  trca''  them  as  his  difciples. 
They  had  heard  Cbrift  pronounce  them  fubjefts  of  his  kingdom,  and 
give  direftions,  that  they  Aiould  be  brought  to  him.  They  had  beea 
reprimanded  for  attempting  to  hinder  infants  from  being  brought. 
^hey  knew,  that  Chrift  came  not  to  IcflTen  the  privileges  of  tfee 
church,  (of  which  the  admiifion  of  infants  was  one)  but  to  enlarge 
tliem  ;  and  that  i^a/?/y>f?  wa^  now  the  r//f  of  admifTjon  unto  it.  Under 
thefe  circumftsnce*,  how  muft  they  underltand  their*  comniffion  ? 
Certainly,  upon  this  author's  principles,  they  muft  fuppofc  it  to 
include  infants;  for  he  allbws  they  would  underftand  it  according 
to  former  ufage.  We  may  then  retort  his  argument.  When  Chrill 
jnftituted  his  facrameni  of  baptifm^  if  infants  were  net  to  be  received 
to  it,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  but  he  fuffic'enily  dedartd  this  ;  other- 
wife  men,  who  had  always  been  ufed  to  fe*e  infants  admitted  into  the 
church  of  God  by  the  fame  token  with  their  parents,  would  conlidef 
them  as  coming  within  this  frefa  commlfiion,  Go^  difcipk  all  nati$ns, 
hapti%ing  thcm» 

Befidc-s  When  they  faw  the  doors  of  the  chorch  now  enlarged  to 
admit  neiv  fubjeds,  even  all  nations,  they  would  not  imagine,  that 
the  fubjedls,  who  had  ever  been  admitted,  were  in  future  to  be  exclud- 
ed. The  commiffion  therefore  muft  be  underftood  as  a  virtual  com- 
ttiand  to  baptise  infants. 

5.  Childrens  right  to  baptifm  is  very,  clearly  taught,  in  thcfd 
words  of  Pettr  lo  the  awakened  Jc^vs,  Aft.  2.  3.3.  Rtptnt  and  be  Lip^ 
tized  e'very  one  of  you,  in  the  name  cfjefus  ChriJ} ,  for  the  remificn  offins\ 
and  ye  Jh  all  recr've  the  gift  of  the  Holy  GhaJI,  for  the  promife  tj  to  ycu 
and  to  your  children.  He  don't  fay.  The  promife  ;/  to  you,  and  'will  be 
to  your  children  when  they  become  believers;  but  it  is  to  both,  to 
you  and  the  children  which  ycu  nsci'  have  :  /Ittd  to  all  them  that  art 
■afar  f>ff~,  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God Jhall  call,  i.  e.  whtfcver  GoA 
fends  the  gofpel  to  call  the  Gentries,  it  carries  this  promiff,  which  i» 
in  like  manner  to  thefn  and  /Mr  children.  The  promife  being  made 
to  thfm  is  urged  as   a  reafon  why  thy  fhotild  be  baptbcd.     And  the 


t     4^     1 

fame  rtai'on  hoUi  few  i^t  baptifm  of  all  tbwliom  the  promlTs  belongs  ^ 
and  coiiicqicnily  for  ihe  baptifm  of  thtir  chiUren,  for  the  promifc  is 
to  them.  Be  bapti-zed-^for  the  promife  is  to  you  cuid  to  your  children.  The 
fealon  affigned  for  baplifm  is  fuch  as  equally  takcj  place  wiih  refpcct 
to  both.  If  the  psfrcnts  iarcreft  in  the  promifc  is  a  rcafoo  why  he  fhould 
be  baptized,  his  chiidrens  intertft  in  it,  ii  jull  as  good  a  rcafon,  why 
fkey  fhould  be  baptized.  To  fuppofcthis  promife  is  a  juft  ground  for 
the  baptifm  of //iVi//r/,  bnt  not  for  the  baptifm  of  thtir  ehildrtn,  is  to 
make  the  apoftle  talk  thus  ablurdly  and  incohefcntly.  The  promife 
is  to  you,  therefore  be  yc  baptized— and  the  fame  promifc  is  equally 
to  your  children,  yet  they  mud  not  be  baptized. 

Well,  but  our  brethren  fay,  *  You  and  your  children  is  nothing 
'  more  than  you  and  your  poltcrity,'  or  your  children  when  they  be- 
come adult. 

But  a  little  attention  will  convince  us,  this  cannot  be  the  meaning. 
This  is  contrary  to  the  narural  conftruclion  of  the  words — The  promifc 
is — to  your  children  ;  not  JhaJt  hi  to  them^  when  they  become  believeri. 
The  people  to  whom  thefc  words  were  fpokcfl,  were  Jei^js  and  Pro/e^ 
lytes,  who  had  always  been  ufed  to  fee  infants  comprehended  with  their 
|>arents  in  covenant  tranfaflions,  and  therefore  would  naturally  fup- 
t>ofe,  their  infants  to  be  intended.  To  fuppofe  that  hy  your  children, 
the  Apoftle  meant  only  their  adult  defcendants,  is  to  make  him  fpealc 
ftonfenfe ;  for  then  he  muft  be  underflood  thus,  *  The  promife  w  to 
you  and  ycur  children,  but  not  as  your  children,  or  as  being  related  to 
you,  any  more  than  if  they  were  children  of  Fagans  ;  but  if  they 
fhould  live  to  adult  age,  (houJd  be  called  by  the  gofpel,  and  fhouli 
believe,  then  the  promife  iiuill  he  to  them,  as  it  is  now  to  you.* 

Now  why  are  children  joined  with  their  parents,  as  joint  partaker^ 
of  the  fame  promife,  if  they  derive  no  benefit  from  this  relatiou,  but 
are  tA  (land  upon  prccifely  the  fame  footing  with  the  children  of  hea- 
thtns  and  infidels  ?  Farther  ;  it  fhould  be  remembered,  that  the  great 
promife  of  the  y^^ra/^iiOT// covenant,  which  probably  is  here  xtft^x^A 
to,  and  called  by  way  em.inenc^,  the  rROMisE,  viz.  I  ^.vi'.l  lea 
God t» you  and ytur feed  \  this  promife,  I  fay,  did  certainly  belong  to 
the  infant  children  of  jibraham,  and  of  hh  fpiritual  (ced  ;  and  the  fcal 
of  this  promife  was  cxprefsly  ordered  to  be  applied  to  fuch.  But  our 
brethren  generally  fay,  '  The  promif*  here  intended  is  the  promife  of 
the  fpitii.  contained  in  the  foregoing  words,  Tefjall  recei've  the  gift  of 
iheUoly  Ghr>ji,*  Be  it  fo.  If  then  it  appears  that  the  promife  of  the 
Spirit  is  in  faft  made,  not  only  u>  believers,  but  aJfo  to  their  child- 
ren, even  to  infanti;  the  rcafon  will  hold,  why  thej  fliould  be  baprii:. 

cd 


[     43     ] 

ed.  It  Is  cxprefsly  promifed,  Ifai.  44.3.  I ^joill four  tny  Sfiht  upon 
thy  feed,  and  my  blejjing  upon  tJAne  offspring  \  i.e.  thy  liitle  ones,  39  the 
following  words  (hew  ;  and  they  (thine  offspring)  y^«//  SPRING  UP 
«s  among  the  gfafs  and  as  nuilloivs  hy  the  nuater-cowfes.  They  (hall 
grow  up  under  the  influences  of  my  Spirit  and  bleflingsof  my  cove- 
nant, as  grafs  under  the  kindly  failes  of  heaven,  and  as  willows  by 
the  fertile  banks  of  rivers. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  with  any  one  who  believRs  the  fo/iptures, 
but  the  divine  Spirit  often  has  great  influence  in  forming  the  mind 
into  a  preparation  for  virtue  and  ufefulnefs,  even  in  its  infant  ftate. 
"John  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghoft  from  his  mothei-'s  womb.  Ifaiak 
was  called  and  formed  from  the  womb.  Jeremiah  was  fanftified  from 
the  womb.  Samuel  grew  up  before  ^e  Lord.  1  queflion  not  bux  all, 
who  are  born  and  educated  under  the  gofpel  covenant,  haVe,  even  ia 
early  childhood,  feme  g«ntle  excitations  to  virtue  from  the  Spirit  of 
grace,  as  a  froii  cf  this  promife  to  believers  anjd  their  children.  Now 
fincc  the  promife  of  the  Spirit  does  in  fai5l  belong  to  little  children, 
ba^tifm,  the  fign  of  the  promife,  belongs  to  them  alfo.  Let  them  he 
haptized-'-for  the  promife  is  to  them.  Note  here  ;  their  receiving  tbc 
Spirit  was  not  a  conduiont  but  a  confequence  of  their  baptifm.  Be  bat" 
//zf<^  and  ye  fhall  receive,  &c.  So  upon  the  Samaritans  mtuxiov^td, 
A£l.  8.  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  after  they  were  baptized  :  So  that 
children  are  to  be  baptized  upon  this  general  promife,  even  before 
they  can,  by  a  holy  life,  give  evidence  of  their  having  adually  re- 
ceived the  Spirit.  That  in  the  gofpel-age,  as  weJl  as  in  former  dif- 
penfations,  children  fhould  be  received  into  covenant  together  with, 
and  upon  the  faith  of  their  parents,  is  plainly  foretold,  Ifai.  65.  22. 
They  are  the  feed  of  the  blejfed  ofths  Lerd,  and  their  offspring  'with  them* 
And  chap.  49.  18.  22.  They  (the  gentiles)  fh  all  gather  them/elves  tO' 
gether,  and  come  to  thee — And  they  fhall  bring  thy  fans  in  their  arms,  and 
thy  daughters  fhall  be  carried  o«  their  ftioulders. 

6.  The  accounts  we  haveeffome  whole  familiM  l^eing  baptized, 
upon  the  faith  of  their  refpeflivc  heads,  afford  an  argument  of  con- 
fijerable  weight,  that  the  Apoftles  underftood  their  commiflion  ai 
extending  to  infants,  and  praftifed  accordingly. 

If  infants  were  baptized,  it  is  by  no  means  probable,  we  fliould  be 
informed  of  their  namts  or  ages  ;  we  could  cxpeft  only  to  be  told  in 
general,  that  fuch  perfens  were  baptized  and  ibcir  families  :  And 
fo  much  we  arc  pld*  Paal  baptized  the  houChoid  cf  Stephanas,  i  Cor. 
I.  16.  Lydia,  when  the  Lord  opetjed  her  heart  to  receive  the  word, 
was  baptized  and  her  houfiold,  kCi.  16.  15.  The  Jaylor,  upon  hi« 
believing  was  baptized,  he  and  all  hli.  vcr.  33.  Thi? 


t     44     ] 

Tnis  Ljdi^  W45  in  tiic  ci:y  of  Thyatira  ;  but  (he  now  dwelt  ^t 
fb:Uppi  ;  here  fhs  had  a  hoale,  in  which  ihe  lc4jed  the  ApolUea 
for  fornc  time,  aod  ihe  had  a  houlhold  with  her.  Whether  they  were 
children  or  lervants,  or  boib,  and  what  their  cxaft  ages  were,  it  is 
cotfaiJ,  nor  ii  it  material.  Tne  ftory  reprcfents  thsm  baptized  upon 
htr faith  \  and  this  is  all  that  is  to  the  purpofe.  It  will  be  fugget\ed 
perhaps,  that  they  might  be  baptized  upon  their  or.vn  faith.  But  the 
hory  gives  no  intimation  of  any  one's  believing,  biic  Lydia.  Take 
the  account  as  Luh  has  left  it,  and  iht:y  were  bap.izv  -1  upon  htr  bcin^ 
Judged  faithful  to  the  Lord. 

The  flory  of  the  Jaylor  is  to  the  fame  purpofe.  He  enquired  of 
the  ApoHIes,  ^djat  mujl  I  do  to  be  faised  ?  They  fay,  Belle-i't  on  the 
Lard,  and  thou  Jbalt  be  faved  and  thine  hou/e.  In  the  fame  fcnfc,  fal- 
vation  is  faid  to  come  to  the  hoafe  of  Z<^ccheiis,  becaufe  hg  was  a  fon  of 
Abraham^  i.  c.  a  believer.  So  fuch  as  are  added  to  the  church  are 
called,  I'LeJiTued.  There  were  doubtlefs  fome  prefeni  on  this  occafion 
befides  \\\t  Jaylor'^s  family  ;  and  fome  of  his  family  might  be  aduki  j 
and  therefore  it  is  faid,  I'hey  /pake  theivord  to  him,  and  to  all  that  lutri 
ifj  his  hou/e.  It  is  added.  He  zvas  bapti::^ed,  |ie  and  afl  his  /raifway^ 
It  is  not  faid.  All  that  weie  in  his  hou/e  were  baptized  ;  but  he  and  all 
his,  i.  e.  fuch  as  were  at  his  difpofa!'— under  his  government — fub- 
jed  to  his  command.  Thcfe  were  properly  /->//.  No  mention  is  yet 
made  of  any  one's  believing,  but  the  J^tylor  himfclf.  But  don't  the 
n*.xt  words,  Hs  rejoiced  belie-i'ing  in  God^juith  a.l  hishou/e^  import,  that 
f  II  his  family  beliered  as  well  as  he  .?  I  think  not.  The  grec4c  words 
i7y;s>i>>i3<T£?tTO  :r;tvoj:it  7r£7ri?£ux'-oj  TW  0£W  are  literally  rendered  ihu?, 
lit  rejoiced  in  all  his  hou/e,  ha<vivg  believed  God.  The  idea  conveyed  is 
this :  After  he  had  believed  God,  he  rejoiced  and  gave  thanks  iji  th« 
pieftncc,  and  in  behalf  of  his  whole  family. 

Now  as  it  had  been  the  ancient  univerfal  praftlce,  to  re;:eive  infanti 
with  their  parents  into  the  church  of  God,  they  who  (hould  read 
thefc  accounts  ofhoufholJs  baptized,  would  naturally  conclude,  tha; 
infants  (if  there  were  fuch)  were  b.iptlzcd  as  well  as  ethers.  If  a 
Miflionary  Tent  frero  this  country,  where  infant  baptiim  is  generally 
pradifed,  to  gorpclize  the  heathen,  (hould  ^ritc  back  an  accoanc  of 
his  fuccefs  ;  and  therein  ihculd  fay,  he  ha^  baptized  lo  mai.y  hundreds, 
and  amongll  the  rell,  fuch  a  noted  perfon  and  his  hoaJheld-^Cach  an  one 
ard  all' hij  ;  who  would  doubt,  but  there  were  fome  children,  under  the 
anc  of  difcrttion,  which  he  meant  to  include  '  But  ifan  Anup.xdobap- 
ilft  Mifljcnary  fliould  publilh  an  account  of  the  houfholds  he  had  bap- 
tizedi  he  would  nataially  except  infants,  to  prevent  milliikes. 

7.  The 


[     45     ] 

?.  The  riglit  of  infants  to  bapiifna  is  farther  confirmed  by  (evtrzl 
particular  j  •Hfagt-s  of  fcripture. 

It  may  he  inferred  from  thofe  words  of  the  Apoftle,  Rom.  n.  i6. 
Xy.  If  the  root  be  holy  tfo  are  the  branches.  And  if  fame  of  the  branchs 
(:he  Jews)  be  broken  ojf,  and  thou  (a  Gentile)  being  a  ^ild  clinje,  ixert 
graffed  in  among  them,  and  ^joith  them  partahji  of  the  root  andjatncf  of 
the  oU-'Ve-tree,  bo  oft  noty  ^c. 

The  eli--ue-(n'e  is  the  church  of  God,  built  on  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham^  Of  this  tree  the  Je-jcs  were  the  natural ;  the  Gaiiiles, 
the  /«^rtf/}a^  branches.  The  root  -^indfatnefs  of  the  tree,  ace  the  priv- 
ileges and  bkfilngs  of  the  covenant.  It  was  one  priviK«  e  of  the  cov- 
enant, that  children  fhoul-d  be  admitted  intq  the  church  with  their 
parents  and  confccraied  to  God  as  his  children.  Therefore  if  the 
Gentiles  are  graj^ed  inio  the  fame  ftock,  fron^  which  fome  of  the  Je^<vs 
are  broken  off,  arrd  w;>/&  them  wha  remain,  partake  of  the  root  and  fat- 
fiefs,  they  certainly  partake  of  this  privilege  of  having  their  children 
grafFed  with  them.  Agcordingly  the  Gemihs  are  declared  to  be/^//(?u>- 
heirs  with  the  Jc-^s — to  be  ofthc^^:*^  body — to  hz  joint-partakers  oi 
the  promife.  God  proraifed,  that  be  would  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and 
Ms  feedf.  And  is  he  a  God  of  the  Jcixs  only  ?  And  not  cf  the  Gen- 
iiles  P  Doubti:efs  of  the  Gentiles  alfo.  God  appointed  a  f.oken  of  thii 
promife  to  be  applied  to  Abraham^  infants,  and  to  the  infants  of  his 
ktd  :  And  if  we  ftan-d  ia  the  faaie  pla^e  as  his  natural  fee  J,  and  ar« 
partakers  with  th^m  of  the  fame  privileges,  then  the  token  cf  ihe 
promife  is  to  be  applied  to  our  infants. 

To  this  paffage  we  may  add  that  remarkable  one,  in  i  Cor.  7.  14. 
The  unbelieving  hvfjand  is  fandiified  by  the  rxife,  and  the  unbelieving  'wf$ 
is  fan,S2ifed  by  the  hujband',  elfe  <vjrreyour  children  unclean ,  but  nozo  an 
they  holy.  It  is  plain  here,  that  the  children  oi  belie'vers  are,  in  fomc 
ien.fe  or  other,  hdy  w  faints  by  virtue  of  their  parents  faith.  They 
are  dillinguifhed  from  the  children  of  unbelu'vers,  which  are  called  un- 
clean,  in  the  fame  manner  ars  chrifians  are  diftinguiilied  from  heathens. 
Now  what  is  thij  i-nfant-holinefs,  which  refulcs  from  the  parents'  faith  ? 
Ic  canno:  be  legitimacy,  as  fom» pretend;  for  furcly  theapofllc  did  not 
mean  to  baf^ardi^e  al!  children  born  of  heathen  parents.  It  ctnnot 
be  real,  inherent  hoiinefs  \  for  in  this  fcrid,  thry  are  bom,  not  of  blcod, 
nor  of  the  ilhU  of  innn,  but  of  God.  It  can  tlreu  be  do  ether,  than  rcUi- 
(I've  or  cc -Jtk. 1  Ki  hoVinds.  The  children  of  believers  are  holy,  as  all 
,xhe  people  of  Ifracl  were  holy,  by  a  fperial  C'^^venani-relaticn  to  Gr-d. 
The  chriilian  church  is  called  a  holy  nrji-^n  and  in-niUar  people,  in  the 
fair.e  ferife.  They  are  holy,  as  a!I  the  finl  bom  under  fhs  law  are  ho- 
ly, by  a  iclecin  dedicttiw-n  to  God  in  his  ie*:iple.     in  alUnon  tu  the 

dcdickfion 


[     46     ] 

dedication  of  the  fir  ft  born  infants,  the  chriftlan  church  is  called.  The 
church  of  firji -born  perj'ons.  They  arc  holy,  2f  being  dad' s  children ^ 
Lorn  to  Z'/OTof  hiiown  covenant-people.  Now  if  they  are  in  this  fenfc 
holy,  by  what  rite  or  ceremony  are  they  declared  {oy  but  by  the  wa(h- 
iog  of  baptifm  ?  The  church  is  citan/ed fy  the  xuajhing  of  rjoater.  If  ihey 
arc  holy  as  being  Gotf  s  children ^  and  within  his  covtnant,  they  are  cer- 
tainly enciiUd  to  the  war-i  of  his  children  and  the /o^m  of  his  covenant, 
which  is  baptifna. 

The  manner  in  which  the  author  of  the  letters  endeavours  to  evade 
thefc  pafTagcs,  (hevvs  that  he  felt  himfclf  embarrafTed  with  ihem.  1  am 
•  rery  willing,  fays  he,  that  children  fliould  be  as  holy  as  the  moft 
'benevolent  perfon  can  wirti  them.  1  have  no  inclination  to  lay  a 
'  ftain  upon  ih^t  innocent  age.— Sut  here  is  not  a  word  about  their 
baptifm.*  The  gentleman  doubtlefs  knew  how  we  argue  from  thefc 
texts  to  prove  infant  baptifm.  \V^y  has  he  not  (hewn,  that  they  mull 
or  may  be  taken  in  fome  other  fenfe  ?  Why  has  he  nt>t  told  us,  how 
the  branches  are  holy  by  the  holinefs  of  the  root :  how  children  are 
holy  by  their  parents  faith,  in  fome  other  fenfe  than  as  being  intitled 
to  the  privileges  and  Teal  of  the  covenant  ?  How  the  Gentiles  can  be 
partakers  of  the  fame  promife,  and  of  the  fame  root  and  fatnefs  with 
Abraham's  natural  feed,  and  yet  not  be  admitted  to  the  fam«  privi- 
leges ?  The  troth  is,  the  argument  from  thefc  terts  is  unanfAW- 
2ble.*  Again. 

•  To  evade  t)»e  argument  from  this  paiTage,  fame  have  Aid,  *  The  fame 
'bolincGi,  which  is  alcribcd  to  the  f^i7^r^«  of  the  believer,  is  alfo    afcrib- 

•  ed    to    the  unbelie'ving  partner,    who   is  faid  to    be  fanSiijiedy    as  svcli  a« 
'  ihe  otFspiing   fanJ  to   be  holy.     Why  then  is  not  the  unbelieving  hufband, 

•  or  tvife,  a  member  of  the  church  by  virtue  of  the  faith  of  the  correlate,  as 
'  as  w.ell  as  the  children,  by  virtue  of  the  faith  of  the  parent  ? 

In  arfwer  to  this  I  vrouM  obferve  j  Infants,  under  the  Old  Teftamcnt,  had 
ever  httn  received  as  members  of  Qod's  chur«h.  But  when  the  Jews,  in  the 
time  of  Erra,  had,  contrary  lo  an  expref$  law,  mirricd  (1  range  wives,  by  whom 
children  were  born  to  them,  it  was  ordered  that  fhefe  children,  w4th  their  he«- 
then  parenw>,  fliottld  be  put  away,  as  uuclean  ;  and  the  men,  who  refufed  to 
jiot  away  their  flrange- wives,  were  themfelvct  to  be  feparaled  from  the  con« 
gregatvon. 

In  the  Corirvlhi^n  chuich  a  doubt  had  arifen,  whether  a  believer  might 
continue  wiih  «n  unbelieving  correlate,  lliii  quellian  the  apoflie  arfwcrs 
in  tbe  affirmative.  For  though  he  advife*  chrirtian*  to  marry  only  in  the 
Lord,  yet  a  marriage,  contraried  when  both  the  parties  were  unbelierers,  is 
rot  dilTolved  by  the  fobfcqurnt  faith  of  one  of  ih«m.  But  it  might  farther 
\t*  enqiiiicil,  whrthtr  chilHieu  born  of  parenta,  of  wl)«oi  one  was  a  heatlien, 
otigh:  rot  to  be  excluded  t.om  the  cbufcch  vriA  the  unclean  or  hcaibcn  parent, 

as 


[     47     1 

Again.  The  Apoftlc,  in  the  4th  chap,  to  Gal.  tcili  us,  that  t/au 
^as  born  after  the  Spirit,  and  born  by  promife.  ^^f  ihis  he  illuftfaict 
the  gofpel- covenant  i  an.d  faysj  ^z  IjAac  was , /o  are  "jjt  tbg  chiUrem 

Ss  had  been  determined  In  the  tlmf  of  Ezra  ?  To  this  the  apoftle  anfwcrs  la 
the  negative.  If  a  brother  ha^j£  a  'wfe  %vho  b^He^JCth  not,  and  /be  be  fieafed 
to  J^zvell'wiib  hiniy  let  bim  not  put  her  aivay,  and  fo  of  the  wife-  who  hath  aa 
unbelieving  hufband.  For  the  unbelievi/tg  hvjband  is^  or  hath  bccn,ya«^;-' 
fed  by  the  ivifc  ;  or  rather,  fanSl'tfed  in,  or  to  the  nx'ife  ;  and  the  unbeUtt-in^ 
'wfe  hath  keen  fanBfediny  or  to  the  hufaiid.  TIj^  unbelieving  i«  fan<5\ifieil 
"in  refpedl  of,  and  in  relation  to  the  believing  party,  io  that  the  latter  h«  a 
lawful  ule  and  enjoyment  of  the  former.  For,  as  the  aptjftle  fays  clfewherr, 
to  the  pure  all  things  are  pure  :  and  e'very  creature  of  God  is  gocsf,  for  it  u 
fan3ified  by  the  iiutrd  of  God  and  prayer.  Elfe  "were  your  children  uncltac. 
If  ths  unbelieving  partner  were  not  fanilificd  to  the  ufe  of  the  believer,  both 
the  parents  muft  be  rejc6\ed  from  the  church,  the  former  *s  a  hcaiheu  ani 
unclean,  thelatter  a?  crjmioally  living  in  cohabitation  with  a  heathen  j  as,  in 
the  time  of  Ezra,  thofe  who  refufed  to  put  away  the  ftrange  wives,  whom 
they  had  unlawfully  taken,  were  to  be  feparated  from  the  congregation.  Con- 
fcquently  the  children  would  be  unclean,  becaufe  both  the  parents  wouW  be 
io.  But  fince  the  unbeliever  is  fanflified  In  relation  to  the  unbeliever,  the 
■children  are  holy,  and  fo  to  be  accounted  members  of  the  churcli. 

The  unbeliever  is  here  faid  to  be  fan6\ified,  not  in  relation  <o  God,  birt 
«nly  in  relation  to  his,  or  heif  yokefellow.  But  the  children  are  faid  to  be 
bolyt  in  oppofition  to  the  nnclean,  or  to  heathcH.  A  perfor/s  being  fanclifreJ 
in  a  particular  refpcft,  or  for  a  certain  purpofe,  as  the  unbeliever  is  liere  faii 
to  be  fan6\ified  only  in  relation  to  the  hufband,  or  the  wife,  does  not  dencre- 
inatc  him  a  holy  one,  which  is,  in  fcrlpture,  the  approp: late  title  of  thofc  who 
belong  to  tiie  church.  Therefore,  though  children  are  members  of  the  church, 
as  defcendod  from,  and  under  the  care  and  government  of  a  beHcvlng  parent, 
yet  a  heathen  becomes  not  a  member  of  the  church  by  marriage  with  a  be- 
liever. The  words  of  the  apoftie  can  convey  no  fuch  idea.  For  he  calls 
children  holy  in  oppofition  to  the  unclean  \  but  he  exprefsjy  defines  and  liir.irs 
the  fcnfe,  in  which  the  iinbelieTer  is  fauiflificd.  It  is  merely  in  refjicSl  cT, 
and  in  relation  to  the  believing  correlate. 

The  fcr.fe  which  we  have  given  of  the  phrafe./^jv^///^  by,  cr  !•  t^e  io.v>, 
ks  approved  by  critical  expofitors,  particularly  by  If^/^itby,  who  fays,  it  is  the 
ftuCt  given  by  the  Cr-eei  interpreters  ;  and  it  is  certainly  agreeable  to  the  pl*;-3ic 
in  tlie  original.  The  apoAle  cannot  inteud,  tl*at  the  unbeliever  is  c-jni'trted 
to  the  faith  hy 'Wit  believer  j  for  this  fanflification  i*  foir.ething  *vliich  had 
already  taken  place,  while  the  fubjefl  was  an  unbeliever.  The  conyci£on  of 
the  unbeliever-  by  the  influence  of  the  believing  correlate,  the  apoftlc  afterwanl 
meations,  as  an  additional  reafon  for  cohabitation  ;  but  he  fpeaks  of  it  :js  a 
chapge  which  hopefully  may,  not  as  what  already  has,  or  certMnly  ^yt/7  taic* 
place.  Ul^at  kaoiufji  thou,  O  xvife,  ivhelher  thou  fait  fa<ve  thy  hvfb^rJ? 
jAkI  hoxv  knov.'ef  theu,  0  man^  lyletter  thAi  fait  fa'vt  thy  i'  t/eP 


[     43     1 

Ift^e  promife  :  i.  f .  we  are  lorn  cli'Mren  of  the  promir*?,  a?  ^cing 
born  of  covenanted  parcot5.  Accordingly  ihe  Apoftic  to  the  Hebreivs 
rpeaks  of  the  privileges  of  the  covenant,  as  being  the  Birth-right  of 
ch?ifliar,>,  ar.d  cautions  them,  that  they  df  DOt  profanely  fell  thif 
-birih-righr,  as  £,:7a  did  Z;/;.  '-.' 

y  And  it  is  worthy  to  be  noted,. that  the  fanieiUks  ^f  which  chriJI^ 
tens  are  diflingulfhed  from  hcathcnsy  arc  rxpr«I*ly  applied  to  the 
<-;6i/irr/f  of  converted  parents.  Are  chriftians  aWtdjc.ivts  ?  So  are 
their  children.  •  Are  i^y  called  </^'^/a/*sSo  arc  their  children,  f 
Do  they  belong  to  Gad's  kingdom  ?  So  xlo  their  chjidre».|  Arc  :hcy 
called  belie'vtri  ?  So  diriftjaa  families,  which  were  fopported  by  a 
common  flock,  in  which  Infari^s  were  inciudcd,  are  called  the  mttititua't 
§f  them  ihat  bc}it:ve.\  ,  _  A,pd,  ^^^f '^  .("peaks  of  thofc  little  ones  which 
hclifve  m  him  \\  Are  chriftians  called  \)\t  cbiUren  o/Cod  ?  So  are 
the  infants  of  profcfTors..^  ,  They  that  belong  to  the  church  arc  called 
ihe/aved'j  To  falvaiion  comes  to  the  houfe  oi \\i^  believer. ||  Who, 
that  confiders,  how  thefe  titles  are  promifcuonQy  given  to  adult  chM' 
ians  and  their  children,  can  doubt,  but  tha:  children  arc  brought  into 
covenant  with  their  parents  in  the  gofpel-time,  as  they  ufcd  to  be- 
fore, and  confeqoently  are  fubjcfts  of  baptifm,  the  only  initiating  feal  I 
S.  I  ihall  add  to  the  preceding  argumsots.  One  more  taken  fron 
I  C^r.  10.  2.  The  Apcftle  here,  fpcaking  of  the  Je'u.-s  who  came 
out  of  £'^y//,  fays,  77vj  i^-ere  all  baptized  unto  Mofes  in  tht  cloud  and 
in  ihe/ea. 

'That  this  paHage  alludes  to  chrlHian  bpptifm,  our  brethren,, partit 
cuiarly  the  author  of  the  letter?,  aI!ovv»  The  Apoftlc  plainly  confidert 
their  bapiifm  into  M^/cs  as  typical  o^ our  bapiifm  into  Chrijf-,  for  he 
adJs  ,  Thc\  did  all  drink  of  the  jame  fpiritual  drink  ;  for  they  drank  of  the 
rock,  ixshich  followed  them y  and  that  rock  is  Chrifl  or  a  type  of  Chrift. — 
All  theje  things  happened  tb  then  for  cnfafnplttt  or  types,  and  are  iJirittcH 
for  cur  admonition.  The  Jnvijk  writers  fay;  *  The  people  were  bap- 
*  tj^cd  in  thi;  defart  and  admitted  into  covenant  with  God  before  the 
'  law  wns  given.'  Now  if  the  Apolllc  has  any  refpcft  to  chrifl ian 
baftifm.  as  it  is  plain  he  ha«,  here  is  an  undeniable  proof  of  the 
right  of  infants  to  haptifm.  For  he  fay,  Tht'y  all,  the  nrhcle  congrc- 
paiion,  of  which  infants  then  in  their  parents  arms  were  a  great  psrt, 
ehry  all 'were  haptifzed  itito  Mofff.  All  'luere  itnder  the  cloud.  All  f^rf'd 
through  the/ea^  f<c.  lie  repeats  the  univerfal  term  nil  becaufe  it  is 
tnpbatical  httt.     Now  if  this   baptifm  into  Mofcs,    was  a    type  and 

written 


•  :  Cor.  7.   H. 

i  Aa.  IS.   ;c. 

J  Mark  lo.  14. 

t,  Aa.4.  ::». 

i;  Mat.  iS.  6. 
tl  Luke  1^  9- 

f,  Erck.  16.  ;>i 

t     49     ] 

Written  for  our  admonition,  it  typically  admonifhcs  us,  that  we  dH 
ilhould  be  baptized  into  ChriH,  not  helteven  bkIj,  but  iheir  children. 
alfo. 

As  the  whole  tongregaticn  were  baptiied  and  admitted  into  cove- 
nant at  the  fca,  when  Mo/es  took  th?  command  of  thcih,  (o  this  cove- 
rant  was  again  renewed  with  all,  both  men,  women  and  linle  oAf/,  ju^ 
before  he  left  them.  Dcut.  7X).  lo,  Te  Jiandy  ell  oj you  hef ore  the  Lord 
your  Cody  your  Eldcr8,  your  little  ones,  your  wives,  that  thou  Jhouldeji 
enter  into  co'venant  'ixith  the  Lord,  that  he  may  epahliffi  thee  for  a  peofile 
unts  him/elf,  and  may  he  unto  thie  a  God,  c<s  he  hathf-juorn  to  thy  Father, 
to  Abraham,  &c.  This  covenant  with  Ahrohem,  Which  is  fo  cxprefsly 
renewed  with  Uttls  onts,  is  defcended  to  us  and  our  children. 

I  fhall  now  briefly  recapitulate  the  arguments  that  have  been  cffer- 
cd,  and  prefcnt  them  in  one  vie\V. 

The  covenant,  which  God  made  with  Ahrahartt  and  his  feed,  ex'prcfs- 
ly  included /«/i?«//  ;  and  the  feal  thereof  was,  by  God's  command; 
{applied  to  them.  We,  believing  Gentiles,  are  the  feed  for  whom  ihe 
covenant  with  Abraham  was  made  ;  and  therefore  our  infants  as  well  as 
hii,  are  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  covenant,  and  fubjefts  f.f  the 
feal  of  it,  by  virtue  of  the  original  grant  to  Abraham,  in  as  much  as 
that  grant  has  never  been  recalled.  This  covenant  was  renewed  ic 
the  red fea—^VidL  again  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  and  fliil  infants  are 
cxprefsly  included. —All  along  under  the  Oid  Tellament,  children 
arc  coniprehended  with  parents  in  all  covenant-tranfadliohs  betweca 
God  and  his  people,  and  the  token  of  the  covenant  is  ftill  applied  to 
theflk  The  Prophets  often  foretell,  that  the  cafe  would  be  the  fame 
in  the  gofpel  time  ;  that  Chrift  Ihould  gather  the  lambs  with  his 
arms-— that  Go^  wculd  pour  his  Spirit  upon  the  "ffipring  of  his  peopie, 
who  (hould  be  the  feed  of  the  bieffed  of  the  Lord,  and  thfeir  cffsfrirg 
rjjith  thsrn.  In  the  Jeivijh  church,  it  was  a  cullom,  long  before  our 
Saviour's  appearance,  to  rsctive  gentile  profelyics  ivith  their  chiUren, 
by  baptifra  as  well  as  circomcifion.  Chrifi  alfo  himfelf  took  infants 
into  his  arms  and  blcfftd  them,  and  direded  tb^t  they  fliould  be 
brought  to  him,  becaufe  of  fuch  was  his  kingdom,  that  kingdom  into 
fvhich  perfons  were  to  be  admitted  by  being  born  of  water.  He  or- 
dered his  Apoftles  to  receive  them  in  his  name,  arid  treat  them  as  his 
4ifciples,  When  he  gave  the  bapiifmal  commiffion,  he  cxpreff  d  it 
in  fuch  univerfal  terms,  as  mull  naturaly  include  infants:  And  the 
Apoftles,  knowing  what  had  been  the  conftant  ufigc  concerning  in- 
fants, and  how  Chrift  had  ever  t.-catcd  them,  muft  andcrftand  thrf 
Commiffion  as  Extending  to  fach.  Accordingly,  foon  after,  when 
G  they 


[     50    ] 

(hey  infitcd  the  conviflcd  yMt/ to  baptifm,  they  placed  their  rigM 
to  it  upon  the  foo:  of  a  protnife,  which  equally  belongcvl  to  them  and 
their  children.  When  they  baptized  the  head  of  any  family  in  his 
own  houfe,  they  baptized  his  family  with  him.  They  comlantly 
taught,  tliat  the  covenant  with  Abrahw/t,  of  which  circumcifioo  was 
the  Teal,  is  the  fame  which  we  arc  now  under,  and  tliat  the  bleflings 
of  it  are  come  upon  us  GsntiUs — that  the  GinttUs  are  griffed  into  the 
fame  ftock,  from  which  the  Je^s  were  brdken  off— that  children  are 
holy  by  virtue  of  their  parents  faith — that  bJiptifm  is  the  chriilian 
cirramcifion,  and  therefore  they  who  are  baptized  into  Chrill,  arc 
frred  from  the  literal  circumcifioa,  and  all  oiher^ ancient  rltea — that 
circumcifion,  as  a  fcal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  was  a  great  privi- 
lege ;  but  the  gofpsl-difpenfation  confers  greater— They  iliuftraie  the 
gofpel-covenant  by  ^ncifenrc  txlXn^^titif  covenant -tranfa6\ions,  in 
which  infants  were  included  ;  by  thfe  cafe  of  I/aaCf  who  was  born  after 
the  promife,  by  Noah\  ark,  in  which  Ki-s  whole  family  were  faved  in 
confequence  of  ^//  faith,  the  like  figure  whereunto  even  bapiifm  novv 
favej  u!  ;  and  by  the  baptifm  of  the  vohofc  congregation,  infants  and 
all,  at  the  red  fea,  which  was  a  type,  and  written  for  our  admonition. 
When  we  confider  thefe  things,  we  think  the  evidence  abundaiitly 
clear,  that  the  infants  of  believers  arc  entitled  to  baptifm. 


DISCOURSE     IV. 

HAVING  laid  before  you  the  arguments  by  which  the  right  tA 
infants  to  bapiifm  is  vindicated,  I  fiiall  now,  as  I  propofcd, 

III.   Shew  you  the  rational  ends   and  mora!  ufcs  of  infant  baptifm. 

If  baptifm  be  a  divine  inftitution  for  the  infants  of  believers,  it 
cughi  to  be  applied  to  them,  whether  we  can  fee  the  ufes  of  it  or  not  ; 
But  Aill  rt  may  giveuj  fome  faiisfaflioo,  to  underlland  what  good  ends 
It  can  anfwcr. 

We  are  often  afkcd,  *  What  gced  can  baptifm  do  to  infants  ?'  It 
inighc  fuHice  to  reply.  As  much  good  as  circumcifion  could  do  to  them 
formerly  ;  or  at  much  ai  the  public  prefentation  of  firll-born  infants  to 
God  could  do  them.  The  ApolUe  fays.  The  profit  cf  ^ircumcijion, 
(which  was  ufuilly  adminidered  to  iofantO  was  much  every  way. 
The  profit  ^i  infant  hcptifrnm^y  be  as  much.  —  Particularly, 

I.  It  u  evident,  that  God  treats  infants  as  finncrs  for  Adarn^  tranf- 
grelTjon.     In  confequence  of  ha  apoflacy,    thty  fuffcr  a  fad  variety  of 

pains 


[     51     3 

p^ins  and  difeafes,  which  often  iffue  in  early  deaih.  And  from  that 
bias  and  inclination  to  evii,  which  they  foon  difcover,  there  is  reafort 
tofoppofe,  they  are  infe^ed  with  fome  moraJ  difcrder,  which  needs  lo 
be  removed  in  order  to  their  entrance  into  the  world  of  glory.  By  otu 
ma::,  fays  the  ^'po^X^,  fin  entered  into  the  ivorU,  and  death  by  fin y  aij 
/»  death  pafiii  u>pon  all min^i  for  that  all  ban: e  finned. — By  one  man's  of^ 

fence,  judgment  came  upon  nil  to   condemnation.-^ J.-i   Adam  all  die  By 

his  offence  many  are  made  fmmri^     la  this  language,   he  fpcalis  in  the 
5th  chap,  to  the  RoraafticJ  ais  oxiv? 

Now  thegofpel  aflures  u3Vitlifat  Chrift  has  obtained  redemption  from, 
the  condemnation  of  fin,  and  that  in  this  redeiuption,  all  who  believe, 
are  unfailingly  interefted.  JBut  we  fee,  that  a  very  great  part  of  the 
h^man  race  are  cut  off  in  iofapcy,  while  they  are  incapable  of  adlual 
faith.  What  becomes  of  them  P  h  any  provifion  made  for  their  fal- 
Vyition  ?  Or  muft  they  perilh  and  be  lofl  for  ever  ?  This  is  a  natural 
enquiry.  Now  to  comfo.^t  our  minds  concerning  y«c;6,  God  has  feen 
fir  to  afTure  as,  that  they  may  become  partakers  of  redemption  by 
Chri/l,  and  be  made  heirs  of  the  kingdom  above,  notwichftanding 
their  incapacity  for  an  «i.7;<«/ compliance  with  thofe  terms  which  are 
propofed  to  the  adult.  And  to  conftrm  9ur  faith  and  hope  in  his 
promife,  he  has  appointed,  that  they  (hall  be  received  with  their  be- 
lieving parents  into  his  vifible  kingdom,  the  church,  and  have  the 
feal  of  his  covenant  afHxed  to  them. 

The  great  promife  of  the  covenant  is,  that  God  v.ill  be  a  God  to 
believers  and  their  feed.  This  promife  is  often  explained  in  fcripture 
to  import  the  happinefs  of  the  life  to  come.  And  God's  appointing 
the  feal  of  this  promife  to  be  applied  to  our  infant  feed,  is  a  moft  com- 
fortable ground  of  our  faith  and  hope,  that  if  they  fhould  be  removed 
by  an  early  death,  they  will  be  tranfplanted  into  that  happy  clime, 
where  they  will  fpring  up  in  everlalting  life.*  God 

*  The  children  of  believing  parents  may  be  faid  to  he  lorn  in  covenant,  as 
they  are  born  under  that  promife  of  the  covenant,  /  nuill  be  a  God  to  thee  and 
toihyfeed.  Accordingly  God  calls  ihem  His  chiWren,  born  to  him.  T« 
thofe  who  dis  in  infancy  this  promife  may  he  undeiHood  as  impoiiing  a  rcfur- 
re6>ion  to  eternal  life.  At  the  Apoltle  argues  concerning  the  patri.utlis, 
(Hcb.  II.)  (b  we  may  reaibn  concerning  ihefe;  lince  they  enjoy  no  diftin- 
guiJhing  favw  in  this  wcrld,  there  murtbe  Tome  good  reftivcd  for  them  in 
another;  ejic  the  promife  fails.  Therefore  God  is  not  ajhamed  to  be  called 
THEIR  God, /or  ke  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city.  To  thofe  who  arrive  to 
moral  agency,  the  promife  may  import,  no*  only  the  enjoyment  of  the  exter- 
nal means  of  religion,  but  the  attendant  infli)ences  of  the  divine  (pirlt.  The 
Apofti'e  telh  uj,  that  among  the  many  advantages  cf  circumcifiun,  this   i? 

one 


[    52    ] 

God  19  fiid  to  have  eflablilbed  bis  covenant  wui»  the  cattk  lod  the 
fowli,  when  be  engaged  no  more  to  drown  the  carih  with  a  flood  ; 
and  as  a  token  ofihis  covenant,  he  appointed  his  bow  in  the  cloud. 
And  furcly  he  may,  in  as  juft  ahd  rational  a  fcoCe,  eflabiiCx  the  covs- 
ntat  of  grac2  with  infants,  engaging  to  pour  his  {pirit  and  bleffiog 
Ufon  ihcm,  and  appointing  the  feal  of  this  covenant  to  be  affixtd  to 
them,   in  token  of  bis  faithfuliiefs  to  fulfil  his  gracious  promiis. 

2.  The  parent,  by  dedicating  his  chi^dr€n  to  God  in  bapiifm,  fo- 
lemnly  binds  himfelf  to  give  them  a  religious  and  chriftian  educatiro, 
and  to  ufe  his  influence,  that  they  i^iall  keep  the  way  of  the  i.ord,  and 
rot  pot  thcmfelves  out  of  that  covenant,  into  which  they  have  been 
thus  vifibly  introduced.  Now  if  it  is  any  privilege  for  children  to 
have  a  religious  educatioa>  it  is  a  P^vjiege  that  fuch  an  education 
ftiould  hejkure^  to  them  ;  and  ccnfequently  a  privilege  that  the  par- 
ent, by  this  public  tranfaftion,  fnould  coijenant  and  tngage  to  bring 
them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 

It  may  be  aflced  perhaps,  How  a  parent  can  covenant  for  his  child- 
ren  ?  Eut  the  anfwer  is  obvious.  He  can  covenant  for  himfelf  \q  ^xi- 
charge  fuch  and  fuch  duties  to  them,  and  can  commend  them  to  God, 
in  hope  of  iLe  divine  blelBng  upon  his  pious  endeavours.  In  this 
fenfe  may  z'itx'i  religious  parent,  as  Joft^ua  did,  covenant  for  his 
houfe.  As  for  rm  and  my  houfe  zue  ivi/lfer've  the  Ltrd. 

3.  As  the  parent,  who  dedicates  his  children,  fliould  confidcr  him- 
felf bound,  by  his   own  acl,  to  educate  them  religioufly  ;  fo  c^Idrea 

thus 

one  of  ti)e  chief,  ihat  to  tham  are  committed  the  cracks  •*  God.  (Rom.  3.1.) 
And  God  expicfsiy  promil'cs  to  Jacob  his  fervant,  and  to  Ifrael  >*^hcm  he 
has  chofcp,  /  ijcitlpour  ntyfpirit  on  thy  feedt  and  my  bhffing  qn  thine  offsprings 
and  they  JhaU  fpri.igup  as  among  the  grafs^  and  as  'uji/lo-ws  by  thenvater- 
courfes.  (Ifai.  44..  3.)  Their  intercft  in  this  promife,  as  the  children  of  God's 
fervants,  is  one  ground  of  ihcir  admilTion  to  baptifm,  the  token  of  God's, 
faithfulnefs,  and  of  their  obligation  to  ferve  him.  But  then  it  is  by  baptilin, 
thai  they  are  decl^rt'd  to  be  wiihin  tbp  church,  and  entitled  to  ih-:  'vifib/c  piiv- 
ileges  ot  it.  Perfons  may  be  lirtuallj  w  covenant  by  their  ox^n,  or  their 
farenii  faith  i  but  they  arc  not  'vifhiy  and  prcfejfedly  in  cotenant,  or  in  church, 
t«il  they  have  p.>fl"cJ  »nder  the  appointad  ceremony.  V/hen  we  fpeak  of  per - 
funs  being  admiiied  into  ihe  chuich  by  b.»piil'm,  we  mean  not,  that  this  con- 
veys the  right  of  adu.l.Tion  j  fui  it  prcfuppofts  the  right  and  ihe  quaUfcatiou, 
or  relation,  in  which  the  right,  by  divine  inditu'ion,  is  founded  :  but  that 
it  declares  the  vigV»  ar.d  thus  introduces  to 'vj/ii/tf  privileges.  God  fays, 
«  The  uncircomciied  nian-child  fiull  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people,  he 
«  haih  broken  my  covenant.'  He  was  previoufly  in  covenant,  elfc  he  cotild  »ot 
be  faid  to  break  it  by  his  uncircumcifion.  So  alfo  the  unbaptired  perfcu  ii 
to  be  cut  oiT,  ox  excluded  from  the  piiviUgrs  of  the  chrifiian  church. 


I    S3    -] 

lius  dedicated,  when  jh«y  come  to  the  age  of  reflection,  fliouM  rea}'a& 
that,  having  been  given  to  God,  they  are  noc  r/jiir  o-wrt,  bat  /»//  • 
and  arc  bound  to  live,  not  to  themjelvest  but  lo  him  whofe  they  are  ; 
and  that  a  wicked','  irreligious  life  is  a  praflical  renunciation  of  their 
biptiffli,  and  difivowil  of  their  relation  to  the  God  of  their  Path-' 
iti,  >::5V03  ::.:j  !  ^t; 

\i  \\it  Je^jjifty  pareljt,  by  fcifturaciring  his  children,  bound  them 
to  own  and  {^x\^  the^G^d  of' /j?aeI:-^U  the  vow  of  Sam/on's  parents 
boaud  hiftt  to  be  a  Nazattte  for fiyet-^lf  Hannah's  vow  bound  Samuel  19 
attccd  upon  God  in  the  fandloary  ;  as  well  may  the  ad  of  the  chnJiiaK 
parent,  in  bringing  his  children  to  baptirm,  bind  them  to  fervt  the 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  jefus  Chriflr.  The  religious  parent  may 
urge  his  children  to  a  godly  life  by  this  argament,  that  he  has  given 
them  to  God.  Thus  the  mother  of  king  Z,;.7/«f/  expoftulates  with 
him.*  Whatmyfon?  And 'Vi3hat^i^hj''an  of  my  rMovib  ?  And  ^juhat  tit 
fan  of  my  vows  ?  And  this  argument  will  have  weight  with  children 
of  an  ingenuous  temper.  Thus  the  Pfalmift  rcafons  with  himCclf.t 
/  tuill  nivalk  before  the  Lord.  I  tvill  call  on  hit  nat:^.e.  I  nx:  ill  fay  my 
'vovus  in  theprefer.ee  of  his  t>cople,  O  Lord,  truly  I  am  thy  fer'vant ,  I  dJK 
ihyfertanty  the  fon  of  thy  handmaid.- ^i  pals  on, 

IV.  To  confider  the  praflicc  of  the  chrillian  church  wi:h  ref^^^ 
to  infants  immediately  after  the  ApofoUc  age. 

The  author  pf  the  letters  fay,  •  It  isof  fmall  importance  to  chrirt- 

*  ians,  •to  know  what   the  many  writers  upon  this  iabjecl,    fince  the 

•  lime  of  the  Evangelifts  and  Apofiles,  have  affirmed.'  But  yet  to 
know  what  they  have  affirmed  concerning  the  mode  cf  bapt-fm,  he 
thinks  to  be  of  no  fmall  importance. 

He  afferts,  upon  their  authority,  that  the  church  for  1300  ye^rs 
^rz^iicdi  immerjion  ;  though  indeed  he  allows,  iUzifprinklm^  was  prac- 
tifcd  too  in  extraordinar;  cafes.  \Jpon  the  fame  authority  it  may  be 
afferted,  that  the  church,  for  many  hundreds  of  year*,  praflifed  .v?/'ia//r 
haptifm  ;  and  not  ^  f^g!e  pcrfon,  much  lefs  a  church,  can  Le  produced 
which  denied  the  la-ivfulr.efs  of  it.  And  the  praaicc  of  the  church  i» 
as  good  an  evidence  in  favoor  ofinfaKt  l-aptifm,  as  it  would  have  been 
in  favour  onmmsrficn,  in  cafe  that  alor^  hac'  been  praillifed. — This 
gentleman  himfelf  (perhaps  inadvcrtenil) )  allows  the  early,  copflmt. 
uniyre'fal  pradice  of  admitting  infants  10  bapifiu.  Tor  he  adopts 
this  pafTage  from  Dr.  If'all,  •  X' chri.^isr.s  i«  the  world,  vho  rcvrr 
'  owned  the  Pope's  authority,  do  now,  and  ever  did,  dip  their  nifana 
'  \n  \\i&  ordinary  ufe.'  (Not  ur^ivcrfally,  but  ordinarily  dipt  them  ) 
If  they,  ^-e'///  infants,    they  haptixed  tbem.     This  pradUcc-  is  cf  much 

v-.^tv.'     '  more 


[     54    ] 

more  weight  to  ptovt  infants  are  i\\t  fuhjedj,  than  to  prove  dipping  is 
the  mode  of  baptifm  ;  becaufc  dipping  was  but  the  crdincny  ufe,  where- 
a*  infant  bap'.ifrr.,  for  ought  that  appears,  was  the  uni-verfal  practice 
)6fthc  ancient  church,  except  in  cafes  o{ prcfelyli/m. 

We  ^0  not  pretend  to  rell  the  proof  of  iwfanta  iffght  to  baptifm  up- 
on the  pra6^ice  of  the  church,  but  upon  the  authoricy  of  i'cripiuje. 
However,  if  it  appeari,  that  the  church,  foon  after  the  Aioflies,  did 
admit  them,  and  there  is  no  account  of  any  chiirch  that  rojeded  iheoi, 
or  any  perfon  who  denied  the  la'wfulnefi  of  the  praftice,  or  pretended, 
xKac  it  was  an  inns'vationt  this  will  be  an  argument  of  conlidcrable 
weight,  that  it  was  derived  from  the  Apoftle's  :  For  the  early  chiill- 
jans,  they  who  lived  In  the  ag^s  nc^t  after  the  Apoftles,  muH  have 
known,  what  tleir  pra£lice  was  in  fuch  a  matter  as  this,  which  was  of 
a  moft  public  nature,  and  concerned  the  very  being  of  the  churcft. 
What  the  ufage  of  the  church  was,  in  tKe  earlieft  times  after  the  Apof- 
llei,  we  can  Icarn  only  from  the  ancient  writers,  who  are  here  pro- 
duced, not  as  examples,  but  only  as  h'-jloriansy  or  witnefTes  to  a  plaia 
matter  of  faft. 

Jujiin  Martyr^  who  wrote  about  40  years  after  the  apoftolic  age, 
fays,  *  We  have  not  received  the  carnal,  but  the  fpiritual  circumcifion 
'  by  baptifm — And  it  is  enjoined  to  all  pcrfons   to  receive   it    in    the 

•  fame  way.*  Here  he  plainly  confiders  baptifm  as  fuccecding  ia 
rhe  place  of  circumcifion,  and  confcquently  as  being  dcfigned  for  in- 
fants as  that  was  ;  which  opinion  he  could  not  er.fily  have  fallen  into, 
if  the  Apoftles  had  univerfally,  both  in  do(f\rine  and  prafticc,  rejefted 
infant5.     In  one  of  his  apologies  for  the  chriftians,  he  fays,   *  Several 

•  perfons  among  us,  of  60  a.id  70  years  old,  who  were  made  dijciples  ta 

•  Ckrijl  from  their  childhood,  do  continue  uncorrupt.'  Made  difcipUs, 
He  ufes  the  fame  word  which  is  ufed  in  the  commiffion  ;  Difciple  all 
naticns  baptixing  them.  If  they  were  made  difciples^  they  were  doubt- 
lefs  baptized. 

Irei.rus,  wlvo  wrote  about  67  years  sftcr  the  Apoftles,  and  was  born 
it  h  fald,  before  the  death  of  St.  Jchn^  and  was  acquainted  with 
Pcljearp^  who  v^as  Joh>i's  difciple,  fays  concerning  Chrift,  *  He  came 
'  to  fave  all  perfon?  by  himfeif,  who  by  him  are  regenerated  (i.  e. 
'  baptized)  unto  God,  infants,  Htt'c  ones,  youths  and  elderly  peribns.' 
ihat  IreniTus  ufcd  the  word  regenerated  to  fignify  L.iptixed,  is  plain 
from  his  own  words  where  he  fays,  *  When  Chrift  gave  his  difciples 
'  the  command  of  re>yn':rafitg   unto  God,   he  faid.  Go  &nd  teach  all 

•  natiors  hu:.::x.:ttg  them,  ftc* 

Tirtullin»t,  who  floorilhed  about   100  years  after  the  Apoftles,  gives 
a  plain   teiUijjony,    that  the  chjrch   admiiied   infants  to  baptifm    in 

bis 


X    55    1 

hii  time.  It  is  true  he  advifes  to  cielay  their  baptifm  ;  not  becaufi  18 
was  unlaiofult  for  he  allows  of  it  in  cafes  of  ncceffuy  ;  nor  mierly 
upon  the  foot  of  their  infancy^  for  he  advifes  alfo,  that  mnnarried  per- 
fons  be  kept  fronv  this  ordinance,  nniil  the/  either  marry  or  are  con- 
firmed in  continence  ;  but  becauft  the  Sponfcn  were  often  brought 
into  a  fnare  ;  and  becaufe,  he  imagined,  fins  committed  after  baptrjm 
were  next  to  unpardonable.  But  his  advifing  to  delay  it,  fuppofes  it 
to  have  been  the  praftice  j  for  othcrwife  there  would  have  been  no 
room  for  the  advice.  H'»  does  not  fpeak  ol  i:  as  an  inno'vaiiont  which 
certainly  he  would  have  done,  had  it  hegun  to  be  praflifed  in  his  lime. 
His  words  rather  imply  the  contrary.  His  fpeaking  of  Spanjors,  who 
engaged  fur  the  education  of  ihe  infants  that  were  baptized,  fliews 
that  there  had  been  fuch  a  cuftom.  Apd  his  aflcing,  Why  that  inno- 
cent a;re  madej'uch  h&Jie  to  baptjfm,  fuppofes  that  infants  had  ufually 
been  bapiizcd  foon  after  their  birth.  So  that  he  fully  enough  witnef- 
fes  to  the/43t7,  that  it  had  been  the  pra<5lice  of  the  church  to  baptize 
infants.  And  his  advice,  to  delay  their  baptlTm  till  they  were  grown 
up  and  married,  was  one  of  thofs  odd  and  fingular  notions,  for  which 
this  Father  was  very  remarkable. 

Origen,  who  was  contemporary  with  I'ertuUian,  exprefily  declares 
infant-baptifm  to  have  been  the  conflant  ufage  of  the  church  from  the 
Apoftles.     Hz  fays,  *  The  baptifm  of  the  church  is  given  for  the  for- 

*  givenefs  of  fins  :  But  why  are  infants,    by   the  ufage   of  the  church, 

*  baptized,  if  there  is  nothing  in  them  that  needs  forgivcnefs  V 

Further  he  fays,  '  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  remifiion  of  fins  ;  for 

*  none  is  free  from  pollution,    though  his  life  be  hut  the  length  of  one 

*  day  upon  earth.     And  ?t  is  for  that  reafon,  becaufe  by   baptifm  the 

*  pollution  of  our  birth  is  taken  away,  that  infants  are  baptized.* 

Again  he  obferves,  *  The  church  had  from  the  Apol^les  an  order  to 
'give  baptifm  to  infants  ;  for  they,  10  whom  the  divine  myileries 
'  were  committed,  knew  that  there  was  in  all  perfons  the  natural  pol- 

*  lution  of  fin,  which  mu(l  be  done  away  by  water  and  the  Spirit.* 

Now  as  Origin,  in  thefe  paiJages,  argues  from  infant-baptifm  to 
prove  original  fin,  ws  may  conclude,  it  was  an  uncontrovertcd  ufage 
of  the  church  ;  for  otherwife  he  could  not,  with  propriety,  have  ufcd 
it  as  an  argument  to  edablidi  another  point. 

Cyprian,  who  wrote  about  150  years  after  the  Apodles,  gives  a  full- 
er teftimony  to  this  fafl.  In  thia  time  a  qaeaion  was  fiarted  by  one 
Fidus,  (not  whether  infants  might  be  baptized,  but)  vvhcther  baptifm 
ought  not  to  be  given  them  on  the  eighth  day,  according  to  the  law  of 
circumcifion  ?  This  quefiion  was  propnfcd  to  a  council  of  65  Bifhops 
convened  at  Carthage^  who  unanimoufly  refolvrd,  that  ihe  baptifm  of 

infanti 


infants  ought  not  to  ht  ueferrcd  to  the  eighth  day,  but  might  be  givch 
them  at  aoy  time  before.  And  a  Itirge  letter  to  t'lis  purpofe,  contain- 
jog  the  reafons  of  the  rcfolve,  wis  written  and  ijgncd  by  Cyprisn,  in 
ihe  name  of  the  council. 

Now  in  this  afTcmbly  of  Minlfters,  doubtlets  there  wire  forac  60  or 
»-o  years  old,  whocouli  reoiember  within  \tii  t^an  ico  years  of  the 
Apoftles.  And  therefore,  if  infant-ba'ptifm  ha^  been  a  ufagc  lately 
introduced,  hmeov  all  oi  them  mud  have  knoA-n  it. — And  if  fo,  it  is 
very  ftrangc  that  not  one  of  them  intimated  a\iy  fcruple  about  it. 
Whether  infants  (hould  be  baptized,  fecms  not  to  have  been  at  all 
aqueftion,  but  only  whether  their  bapiifm  needed  to  be  deferred  10 
the  8th  day,  which  without  hcfitancy,  was  determined  in  the  neg- 
ative. 

A  little  more  than  100  yt^ars  afjtr  this  timCj  Gregory  Na:ii arisen 
taught,  *  that  infants  (hould  be  bapttzed  to  confecrate  them  to  Chrift 
«  in  their  infancy,*      Jmhrofe,  *  that  the  baptifai  of  infants  had  been 

*  the  praclice  of  the  Apoftles  and  of  the  church  till  that  time.*  Cbry^ 
^  fojlom,  *  that  baptifm  had  no  determinate   time,  as  circumcifiDn  had, 

*  but  one  in  the  beginning  of  life,  or  one  in  the  middle  of  it,  or  onf 

*  in  old  age  might  receive  it.* 

But  not  to  maltiply    citations  ;   I  fhall  add  bi:t  one  ir.orc,  Auf.in, 
about   3C0  years  after  the  Apcftles,   had  a  controvcrfy  with  Pelmgius 
&bout  original  fia  ;  and  to  prove  it,   he  frequently  urges  infant-bap- 
tifm,  demanding,    Why  infants  are  baptized  for  the  remiflion  of  fms^ 
if  they  have   none  ?  Pdcgius  though  greatly    puzzled  with  the  argu- 
ment, yet  never  pretends,  that  infant-baptifm  was  ^n  unfcriptural  in- 
fiGvatiot:,  or  zpariisil  ufage  in  the  church  ;  which,  had   it   been  true; 
a  man  of  his  very  extsnfive  acquaintance  with  the  world,  muft   have 
known  ;   ani  had  he  known  it,  he  doubtlefa  would  have  faid  it,  whcrt 
}.e  fojnd  himTelf  embarrafTed  with   the  argument.     But   far  from  in- 
timating any   fuch  thing,  when  fome  charged  upon  him  the  denial  of 
infant-baptifm,  as  a  confvquence  of  his  opinion,  he  difavows  the  con- 
i'eqncncc  and  coff^plains,  that  h:  had  been  fanderouf^y  rtprrfentsd  as  der.y* 
ir.g  baptijtn  to  infants.     He  aCc.^,  '  Who  can  be  fo  impious  as  to  hinder 
'  infants   from    being  baptised    and  born   again    in  Chrift  ?'    And 
citing  ihcfe  words,  Exctp:  one  he  horn  cf  ii^attr  and  the  fpirit,  he  cannet 
enter  into  the  krigdom  •fGoJ»  he  fays,  *  Who  can  be  fa  impious  as  tQ 

*  ft^\i^c  to  an  infint,  of  whatever  age,  the  common  redemption  of  roan- 

*  kind  .'•     And  many  other  exprelTionD  he  uj'cs,  which  plainly  fuppofe, 

that  infant-hiptifm  had  been  pruJlifcd  unircr^Vily,  and  time  out  of 

znJnd. 

And 


t    57    3 

And  from  this  time,  till  the  year  1522,  (as  Dr.  IVall,  upon  a  moft 
Carefttl  enqairy,  affures  us)  thtrc  is  noi  fo  much  as  a  man  10  be  fv)und, 
who  has  fpoken  againft,  or  even  pleaded  for  the  delay  of  the  bapiifm  of 
infant?,  except  a  ftnall  number  in  France,  in  ihe  12th  cencury,  who 
denied  the  polfibiiity  of  their  falvation,  and  confequently  th^ir  right 
to  baptifm.     But  this  fed  foon  disappeared. 

Now  if  all  the  firft  churches  were  every  where  eftablilhed  by  'he 
Apoftlcs,  upon  the  plan  only  of  adult  bapiimi.  and chiidr^n  were  every 
where  left  unbaptized,  how  could  infant-bapulm  Wp;  n  {o  eirlv,  and 
rpread  fo  cxtcnfively  as  it  feems  to  have  donr  ?  Ho«v  could  fuch  a 
rpeedy  and  total  alteration  take  place  in  a  matter  of  fuch  public  no^ 
lice  and  great  importance,  and  yet  no  noife  be  made  ab-^ut  it  ;  no  op- 
podtion  raifcd  againft  it  ?  Such  a  thing  would  be  abfurd  ro  imagine. 
Thcearly  and  oniverfal  ufage  of  the  church  is  then  an  argument  of 
^ety  conGderable  weight,  that  infant  baptifm  was  an  Apoflolic  prac* 
ticc. 

To  invalidate  this  argument  our  brethren  alledge,  that  many  c  - 
fttptioos  were  early  admitted  into  the  chridian  church  under  prcteucc 
i^\  Apojlolic  traditions,  and  prevailed  without  oppofition  ;  fuch  as  Infant^ 
Communion,  Exorcifm,  Trine'ImmerJtftn,  Vndion  after  baptifm t  tic. 
But  fuppofing  thefe  had  prevailed  as  early  and  univerfally,  as  we  fiud 
infant  baptifm  to  have  done  (which  truly  was  not  the  cafe)  ye:  there  is 
this  mighty  difterence.  Thefe  were  but  circumllantial  errors,  which 
did  not  deftroy  thebeingof  the  church,  or  nullify  men's  chriiUanicy, 
and  therefore  it  is  no  wonder,  that  we  have  no  account  of  any  warm 
controverfy  about  them.  But  infant  baptifm,  in  the  opinion  n>'  our 
brethren,  does,  fo  far  as  it  prevails,  unchurch  the  church  cf  Chri!?  : 
iFor  they  look  upon  thofe,  who  have  received  no  other  baptifm,  a'  be- 
ing unbaptized,  and  unfit  for  chriftian  cotnraunion.  Now  if  the  firft 
chrillians  had  viewed  it  in  this  light,  would  they  have  fat  filcnt,  when 
they  faw  it  get  footing,  and  prevail  ?  Would  not  feme,  alarmed  at  the 
dangerous  innovation,  have  born  their  tcllimony  againft  it  ?  Would 
there  not  have  been  fome  churches,  which  prefcrvcd  the  primitive 
ufage,  and  renounced  communion  with  fuch  as  had  fa  clTcniially  de- 
parted from  it  ?  The  different  fcfls  of  chriftians  were  often  inflamed 
againft  each  other  by  fmaller  differences.  It  is  therefore  utterly  an- 
accountable,  that  there  Ihould  be  nodifpute,  when  this  fuppcfcd/««^- 
amental  innovation  was  introduced,  nor  the  Icaft  remains  cf  any  con- 
troverfy about  it,  until  within  thefe  two  or  three  centuries. 

There  were  indeed  foitte  great  corruptions  intr-'duced  into  the 
church,  which  in  time  ccnfidcrably  prevailed,  foch  z%  Image  i^-orfrip, 
Tranftibffantiatiertt   5cc,     But  thefe  never  prevailed  fo  univerfally,   fo 


[     S3     ] 

ekrJy,  nor  fo  ivithout  oppojition,  as  we  have  feen  i.i/unt  baptifrjt  muH  h^ve 
done.  A  great  part  of  the  chriftian  church  has  always  rejeftcd  them 
and  protertcd  againfl  them.  Many  Synods  and  Councils  have  public- 
ly condemned  them.  And  in  the  limes  when,  and  places  where  they 
jAoH  prevailed,  it  was  by  the  protcdiion  and  fuppon  uf  civil  and  mili- 
tary power  ;  which  cannot  be  pretended  in  the  cafe  of  infant  baptifra. 

It  is  lime  that  wc  draw  to  a  conclufion.  I  have  only  to  lay  before 
you  a  few  deduAions  from  what  has  been  ofFered. 

It  has,  I  think,  been  proved,  that  our-  baptifm  is  one  with  that  of 

Cur  brethren^  and  that  we  have  neither  changed  the  baptifm  inftituted 

by  Chrift  into  another  rite,  nor  introduced  a  ne-w  fct  Qi/ubje£ii.     And 

therefore, 

I.  I  beg  leave  ferioufly  to  enquire.  Whether  our  brethren  have  any 

juft  occafion  to  withdraw  themfelves  from  our  communion  ?  Surely 
the  candid  among  tf\eni  will  acknowledge,  that  our  opinion  is  not  io 
wholly  without  foundation,  but  that  it  may  confiH  with  an  honefl  and 
good  heart.  And  can  it  be  for  the  intereft  of  chriftianiiy,  which  wc 
on  both  fides  profefs  to  regard,  that  wc  fhould  renounce  fellowlhip 
with  each  other  on  account  of  this  difference  ?  We  are  willing  they 
Jhould  commune  with  us,  and  yet  enjoy  the  liberty  of  acting  agreeably 
to  their  own  principles.  Though  we  with  they  might  think  with  us, 
yet  we  would  by  no  means  conflrain  them  to  bring  their  infants  to 
baptifm  contrary  to  their  confcienccs.  And,  I  apprehend,  few  min- 
iftcrs  would  fcruple  to  adminifter  baptifm  by  immerfion  to  any  fuita- 
bly  qualified,  who  chufe  fo  to  receive  it.  For  though  they  think  af- 
fufian  warranted  by  fcripture,  yet  they  are  far  from  denying  the  va- 
lidity of  immerfion.  Since  therefore  our  brethren  may  enjoy  iheir 
own  principles  with  us,  what  occafion  can  they  have  to  feparate  froju 
us? 

Perhaps  fome  will  fay.  We  cannot  commune  with  you,  becaufe,  in 
our  opinion,  you  are  unbapiized  ;  nor  can  we  receive  baptifm  from 
your  rainillcrs,  becaufe  they  have  received  no  other  than  infant  baptifm, 
which  is  a  nullity  :  And  fince  they  hare  not  been  regularly  baptized 
themfelves.  they  cannot  adminifler  valid  baptifm  to  others. 

It  were  to  be  wilhed,  that  perfons  of  fuch  narrow  fentiments  would 
realize  the  confcqacncc.  Infant  baptifm  was  undoubtedly  the  univer- 
fal  prafticc  of  the  chriftian  church  for  many  hundreds  of  years  to- 
gether. Hiftory  does  not  inform  us,  when  it  firft  began  to  be  praftif- 
cd  ;  but  we  have  particular  accounts  when  it  was  firft  oppofcd. 
And  if  it  be  a  nullity,  there  is  not,  nor  can  be  again,  any  regular 
baptifm  in  the  world  ;  for  thert  is  not  the  leaft  ground  to  pretend  to  a 
fucceflion  of  aduU  baptifms.     If  we  trace  Svlult  baptifms    back,   we 

muft 


[     59    3 

mull  come  to  the  time   when  they    were  admlnlflered  by  thofe  wka 
v.'ere  baptized   in  infancy,  and  who,  upon  the  principles  above  mei»- 
tioned,  could  not  adminifter  valid  baptifm.     Our  brethren  therefore, 
by  nullifying  our  baplifm,  nullify  their  o-.vn  ;  and  by  unchurching  us, 
unchurch  themfslves.     Yea,  upon  thefe  principles,  there  were  no  au- 
thorized miniftcf's,  nor  regular  churches,  nor  baptized  chriflians,  for 
many  centuries  together,,  cor  arc  there  now,    nor  ever  will  be  again, 
without  a  new  commiflion  from  heaven.    How  then  has  Chrift  fulfilled 
his  promifes,  that  he  will  be.wiih  his  miniflers  always  to  the  end  qf 
the  world,  and  that   tfhc  gates,  pf  hell  /hall  not  prevail    againft   his 
church  ?  We  may  refi  affured,  that  thefe  promifes  have  not  been  for- 
gotten, and  confequently,  th^t  baptifm.did  no:  ceafc,  nor  the  ^hurch 
fail,  when  infant  baplifm  became  fo  much  the  general  pra<ftlce,  that  a 
fucceflion  of  adult  baptifms  wa/j   nowhere  pref^rved.     Ourbrethren 
jthen  mart  allow,  that  baptifro,  a'S-aaminifteredin  our  churches,  is  va- 
lid, and  confcquentl/,  that  the  abo\x  mentioned  pica,  for  declining 
communion  with  us,  is  of  no  weight. 

And  indeed  many  among  them,  thongh  they  think  infant  baptifm, 
efpecially  when  performed  by  fprinkling,  not  regular,  yet  ^o  fo  far 
allow  the  validity  of  it,  that  they  fcruplc  not  to  hold  communion  uith 
us.  Some  baptift  churches  in  £«^/^W  arc  founded  on  this  catholic 
plan.  The  church,  of  which  the  late  celebrated  Dr.  Fcjlcr  was  mln- 
il^er,  received  to  her  communion  fuch  as  were  baptized  in  infancy, 
without  requiring  them  to  be  rebaptized.  The  famous  Mr.  ^''hijlcn 
was  admitted  to  the  communion  of  this  church,  after  leaving  the 
church  of  Englami,  without  rebaptizacion,  which  he  never  would  fub- 
mit  to  ;  for  though  he  pronounced  baptifm  in  infancy,  and  by  fprink- 
ling, to  be  wrong,  yet  he  declared  it  to  be  *  fo  far  real  baptifm,  that 
it  ought  not  to  be  repeated.'*  V/ere  our  brethren  all  (as  indeed  many 
of  them  are)  of  the  fame  generous  fe.'^iiments,  we  (hould  hardly  need  to 
be  known  as  different  fefts  ;  to  be  fure  there  would  be  no  occafion  fcr 
dividing  communions  upon  our  diilcrent  opinions. 

With  thofe  of  Icfs  generous  feptiments,  1  beg  leave  ferioudy  to  ex- 
poftulate.  That  you  have  the  fame  right  as  U'c  have,  to  judge  what 
are  the  divine  inftiiutions,  and  to  prafiice  aciCordingly,  none  will  de- 
ry.  But  to  differ  in  fentiment  and  pradicc,  i)  one  thing  ;  to  renounce 
communion  on  account  of  this  difference  is  another.  To  jufli/y  this 
flep,  it  is  not  fufficient  to  prove,  that  you  may  be  in  the  right  :  It  is 
neceiTary  to  prove,  that  we  .vv«/?  he  fundament  all j  in  the  wrong.  You 
fuppofe  us  to  be  in  an  error.  But  is  this  error,  in  your  opinion,  fo 
njanifcft,  and  fo  grofs,  that  none  who  embrace  it  can  be  honefl  chrirt- 

ians  ? 
*  •  Clark's  Defence,  pagf  34., 


t  60  3 

i§ns  ?— Can  you  dcmonnrate,  that  the  feil  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
was  mv^r  appointed  fur  the  children  of  believers  ;  or,  if  fuch  an  ap- 
peinimFOi  was  once  made,  ii  has  fince  bean  revoked  ?  that  bapiifm  «/- 
nc\7jf  figriifies  immerfiott,  and  that  this  mod?  was  itt^ariaUy  ufcd  by 
l^capoUics?  Tnat  the  age  and  manner  of  adrniffion  into  the  church, 
io  u  c  among  you,  is  fo  cITv-niial,  that  the  leaft  deviation  nullifies  our 
cor  ftiunity  f— Will  you  pretend,  that  there  are  no  real  chriftians  in 
uir  c^urchvs  ?  That  the  word  and  ordinances  adminiHered  in  them, 
h*ve  never  been  bN(rrd  to  men's  conversion  afi^  i^lvatioa  \  That  there 
wa»  nothing  of  the  p  »^vcr  of  godlioeft,  in  ind  after  the  time  of  re- 
formation ?  No  true  religion  among  our  fathers,  and  in  the  churches 
founded  by  them  ?  That  'here  have  been  no  revivali  of  piety  in  thcfc 
churches  fince  they  were  planted  ?  That  God  has  never  owned  them 
by  providential  proteftions,  or  by  tbe  ^ffufions  of  his  fpirit  ?  Hat 
there  never  been  any  real  godlinefs,.  but  what  was  confined  to  your 
denomination  ;  and  none  at  sll  in  tbat  long  period,  when  your  fefl 
did  nocexift  ?  Thefe  things,  I  know,  you  will  not  pretend.  Nay,  I 
Yvill  enquire  farther  ;  do  not  mnny  of  you  date  yoar  own  cocverfion  at 
a  time  when  ycu  were  in  fentiment  and  in  communion  with  our  church- 
es ?  Did  not  God  beftow  this  great  mercy  upon  you,  while  you  at- 
tended on  the  miniflration  of  his  word  and  ordinances  among  us? 
This,  1  know,  fome  of  you  profcfs.  You  believe  then,  that  God  has 
owned,  and  Hill  owns  thcfe  as  his  churches  :  and  yfiWXyou  difown  them  ? 
Will  you,  rejed  that  which  God  receives  ?  If  you  think  it  moft  con- 
venicnt  to  wcrlhip  and  commune  ordinarily  with  thofe  of  your  cvvn 
frntimcnts  ;  yet  why  need  you  renounce  fellowlhip  with  us  ?  Are  you 
doing  God  fervice,  when  yoa  caufe  divifions  and  offences  in  his 
churches,  contrary  to  the  doclrine  of  peace  and  unity,  that  we  have 
received  ?  Let  us  not,  r.y  brethren,  rend  the  body  of  Chrift  by  our 
divifions  ;  but  wiih  united  zeal  build  up  his  kingdom  in  the  world. 

2.  The  preceding  difcourfcs  teach  us  the  unwarrantablenefs  of  re- 
baptization.     It  is  agreed  on  both  fides  that  baptifm  is  not  to  be  re- 
peated.    If  then  our  baptifm  is  valid,  a  repetition  of  it  is  contrary  to 
the  ivill  of  God.     In  the  baptifm  of  an  infant  there  is  the  application 
of  water  in  th^   name  of  the  Trinity,  as  well  as  in  the  baptifm  of  an 
adult.      If  this  baptifm  be  not  valid,  it  is  only  becaufc   the  fuhje(5l    had 
not  faith,  and  did  not  a^ually  confent  to  the  baptifmal  obligations. 
No".v  if  the  baptifm  of  an  infant  is  a  nullity  for  want  of  thefe  qualifica- 
tions, tha  want  of  ibea  a'III  equally  nullify  an  adult  baptifm  ;  but  yet, 
I  prcfume,   none  of  our  brethren  will  carry  the  matter  to  this  length. 
Let  uj  put  a  cafe   (and  fjch  a  one  it   doubtlcfs  fomciimes  happens.) 
An  adalt  perfon  tr-ikes  a  crofcflior.  of  faith  and  obedience,  ar.d  is  bap- 
tized. 


[  C'  1 

tixsd.  It  ioon  appears  from  the  wickcdncfs  of  hi*  life  and  the  ccr- 
Tuptnefs  cf  his  principles,  that  he  had  no  faich  in  any  rational  fcnfe, 
and  never  confented  to  the  baptifmal  obligations,  but  was  irfluenced 
ooly  by  carnal  views.  The  man  afterward  comes  to  repentance,  con- 
feffes  his  hypocrify  in  ihi^  affair,  and  owns  he  had  no  religious  views 
in  the  whole  craAfadion.  He  now  give?  fatisfaftory  proofs,  that  he  ii 
become  a  real  penitent  and  believer.  Ought  this  perfon  to  be  rebap- 
tiz-^d  ?  Every  one  will  Ci^yt  No 7  becaufc  he  has  been  baptized,  and 
his  baptifm  will  fave  him,  a^  he  has  notu  the  anfwer  of  a  good  con- 
fciencc  toward  God.  When  ^'^cn  the  forcerer,  who  had  been  bap- 
tized bv  Pbilipt  difcovercd  the- vile  hypacrify  of  his  heart,  /*f/^r 
dircfts  him  co  icpent,  that  his  fin  might tje  forgiven  ;  but  fay;  roih- 
ingof  his  being  baptized  agsin  :  VVhereai  te  fays  to  the  unbaptized 
'JtviSy  Repent^  and  be  baptized  for  the  rsmijft^n  effiiis  Bac  there  is  juft 
the  fame  rrafon,  why  this  hyp^crit£  ^:^\i\d  be  baprizcd  again  upon  hit 
repentance,  as  why  the  infant  fbouJd  ;  becaufe  he  no  more  had  faith 
before  baptifm,  and  no  more  coofented  to  any  religious  obiigatior, 
whe:i  hf  was  baptized,  than  an  infant.  If  a  profcllioo  of  reptntaiiCtf 
is  all  ihat  isneccfTary  to  our  receiving  this  baptized  hypocriiC,  a  pi»^- 
feCi^n  of  faith  and  obedience,  at  adult  age,  is  all  that  is  necelfdry  to 
our  receiving  one  baptized  in  childhood.  So  that  rebaprizacion  ix 
unwarrantable  and  finful  even  upon  the  principles  of  our  breihrta 
themfelves  ;  and  much  more  upon  fuppoCtion  of  infants  right  to  bnp- 
^ifm,  which,  I  think,  has  been  abundantly  proved.     Further, 

3.  If  children  are  the  proper  fubjeds  of  bap  ifm,  then  it  is  the  hn^ 
difpcRfibie  duly  of  parents  to  prefent  'hem  to  Gad  in  this  ordinance, 
and  there  muftbe  an  InexcufAblc  negieft  in  tJiofe  parents,  who,  though 
convinced  of  their  chiidrens  right  to  baptif(%  delay  to  procure  it  for 
them. 

Some  will  fay  perhaps,  *  Though  we  difpute  not  their  right  to  ir, 
yet  it  appears  to  us  to  be  a  matter  of  very  little  confequence.' 

But  certainly  it  is  a  matter  of  ^r^w/  coafeqiicnce,  that  you  compi/ 
with  a  divine  inftitution.  Ke  that  breaks  the  leall  command  fnall  be 
called  leaft  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Perhaps  you  will  fay,  *  We  can't  foppofe  the  happint- .'s  cf  ocr  cbi'd- 
itxi  at  ail  depends  upon  t!=!eir  baptifm,  fincc  i:  is  a  thing  oui  of  iluxr 
power/  Be  it  fo  :  Yec  if  it  be  a  duty  incumbent  on  )Outobiing 
them  to  b2ptifm,'_y<7«rhappiner3  may  depend  on  youx  compliance  wuh 
this  as  well  as  any  other  duty.  But  how  arc  you  (arc  that  ihe:r  welfare 
no  way  depends  upon  it  ?  Their  welfare  much  Jep-nds  on  their  being 
jeiigiojfly  educated-— their   cdjcatlcQ  will  chitflv   lie  wiih  )0u— by 

ltc;r 


[      62      ] 

their  bapiifcn  you  engage  to  give  them  a  religious  education — and  if 
your  bringing  yourfclves  under  public  folemn  obligations,  jvill  beany 
motive  with  you  to  educate  them  religioully,  then  their  welfare,  in 
fome  degree,  depends  on  their  baptifm.  You  wi^ll  fay^  *  You  can  d» 
your  doty  as  well  without  fuch  a  promife  aawjt^  it,*  With  equal 
reafon  might  you  fay,  you  can  live  a  rcliglou*  li/«  without  cvtr  mak- 
ing a  profeflion  of  religion,  as  well  as  if  you  tjld.  ■  But  God  has  re- 
oQircd  you  to  make  a  profeflion,  becaufe  this- will  be  a  proper  motive 
and  ioddcement  to  you  to  live  a  religious  liic-.;  it  i?  a  fuiiable  means 
of  Hrcngthening  your  obligations'and  keeping  fhem  in  your  remem- 
brance. And  your  dedicating  your  children  to  Gad  in  baptiira  is 
founded  on  the  fame  reafon.  It  is  a  promifc  which  you  take  on  your- 
fdlves,  and  a  means  of  reminding  you  of  your  obligations,  to  educate 
them  reiigioufiy.  And  this  will  be  an  argument,  which  you  may  ufe 
to  good  advantage  in  your  add I'enVs  to^them. 

With  xefpeft  to  cnbaptizcd  infants,  we  may  be  afiured,  God  will 
do  them  no  wrong.  But  if  he  has  made  their  baptifm  a  condition 
of  {he  bcflowmenl  of  forae  undeferved  favours,  who  can  fay,  this  is 
unjufl  ?  It  would  be  prcfumption  to  affert,  that  all  w4i3  die  unbaptizcd 
are  loft.  God*s  tender  mercies  arc  ever  all  his  work?.  But  thc/ro- 
mif'e  is  to  believers,  and  their  children.  And  iTiouId  we  fuppofc,  that  , 
the  baptized  infants  of  believers,  have  forae  advantages  above  other 
infants  in  another  (late,  this  could  not  be  called  abfurd  :  For  it  is 
cert&inly  a  part  of  the  fchcme  of  Gid's  moral  government,  that  fome 
n.ould  be  benefited  by  the  piety  of  others.  All  interceflion  is  found- 
ed in  this  principle.  You  doubtlefs  fomctimcs  pray  for  your  infant 
children.  If  you  fee  them  in  danger  of  death,  you  pray,  not  only 
that  ihcir  lives  may  be  fparcs',  but  alfo  that  their  fouls  might  be  fav- 
ed.  But  why  do  you  pray  for  them,  if  you  imagine  no  good  can 
redotmd  to  them  from  your  faith  and  piety  ?  How  often  did  Chrirt  ex- 
crcife  his  healing  mrfcy  toward  the  fic'k  on  account  of  the  faith  of 
others?  IIjvv  often  did  he  grant  cures  to  children  upon  the  earned 
petitions  cf  their  parents  ?  It  would  then  be  extremely  ra(h  to  con- 
clude, your  infants  canno:  be  benefited  by  your  dedicating  them  to 
<iod-  Thofc  believers,  who  brought  infants  to  our  Saviour,  that  he 
Ihould  blefs  them  an.i  pray  for  them,  entertained  another  fentisient. 
They  thought  the  j^ood  ofthefc  children,  in  fome  mcafure,  depended 
on  /6.'/r  bringing  thfin  to  Cluift.  And  Cbrift  commended  their  pie- 
ly,  and  direflrd  oiheri  to  do  likewife. 

Some  perhjps  will    fay,  •  We   believe    that    infants    are  fubjefls  of 
baptif.iJ,  but  we  ijueftion  OJr  own  right  to  give  them  up  to  God  th^re- 

iQ.» 


I  63  ] 

in.'  Bat  if  you  qucftion  your  own  right,  k  mnft  be,  bccaufe-  yo4 
queilion  whether  ^rou  have  any  religion.  And  can  you  be  content- 
ed fo  ? 

Whatever  the  difHcuIty  is,  which  lies  in  your  way,  it  fhould  be  your 
immediate  concetn  to  remove  it.  Is  it  not  your  intention  to  live  a  life 
of  religion  ?  Is  It  not  your  dcfirc  that  your  children  fhould  grow  up 
before  the  Lord  ?  Is  it  not  your  refolution  to  bring  them  up  for  Wim  ? 
If  it  is,  then  fay  fo,  by  a  pnblic  dedication  of  yourfclves  and  your  chil- 
dren to  God.  If  it  is  not,  then  tremble  at  the  thought  of  your  own 
impiety  and  careleffoefs.  If  you  have  nogood  purpofcs  and  defires, 
you  cannot  confidently  profefs  any  ;  jf  you  have  good  defirei  and 
purpofes,  ftrengthen  and  confirin  them  by  bringing  yourfelvcs  under 
explicit  obligations  to  a^  agreeable  to  them.. 

Finally.  Let  fuch  as  have .  de/iicai^d  their  children  to  God,  aft 
under  a  fenfe  of  the  vows  that  are  upon  them. 

If  your  children  are  removed  by  an  early  death,  quicily  fubmit  to 
the  will  of  that  fovercign  Lord,  whofe  property  you  have  acknow- 
ledged them  to  be,  and  entertain  no  anxious  thoughts  about  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  has  difpofed  of  them.  When  you  gave  them  to  him 
in  baptifm,  you  prcfciTed  your  faith  in  his  mercy  toward  them.  If 
you  cannot  truft  him  to  difpofe  of  them,  why  did  you  dedicate  theia 
to  him  ?  If  you  can,  why  arc  you  anxious  about  them  now  fincc  he 
iias  taken  them  into  his  own  hands  ? 

If  your  children  live,  then  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord.  If  your  worldly  circumftances  make  it  nc- 
ceflary,  that  you  fhould  commit  them  to  the  care  of  others,  fee  that 
you  put  them  into  families  where  you  have  reafon  to  think,  they  will 
be  religioufly  educated.  If  you  keep  them  under  your  own  imme- 
diate care,  train  them  up  in  the  way  in  which  they  fliould  go  ;  and 
commend  rhem  to  God,  and  to  the  word  of  his  grace,  which  is  able 
to  build  them  up,  lod  to  give  them  an  inheritance  among  the  Saint: 


AN 


AN 

APPENDIX, 

CONTAINING     THE     HISTORY     OF     THE    ORI6IK    OF    THE    ANA* 

baptists:  in    rouR    lettbks    to  a,    friend,    who   ha> 

SOME       SCRUPLES      CONCERNING      TUB       DIVItiB      RIGHT     O* 
INFANT    BAPTISM. 

prritfrn  by   phrticUtaf   reauefi. 

BY   NATHAN  PERKINS,    a.m. 

Pastor  of  a  Church  in  Hartford, 


LET  TE  R     I. 

Sir, 

You  have  been  blefTcd  with  the  adv^intagcs  of  i  public  liberal 
education,  for  which,  you  fay,  you  can  never  be  adequately  thankful. 
Much  of  your  tirrc,  fince  you  received  the  honors  of  the  univerfity, 
has  been  devoted  to  reading  and  thought.  And  what  has  given  mc  no 
fmall  fatisfaiflion,  is  that  you  are  extrcraely  folicitous  to  forni  juft  no- 
lions  of  the  great  fubjeft  of  Religion  in  general,  and  to  derive  your 
lentimcnts,  concerning  any  du<flrines  or  rites  in  particuhr,  purely  and 
folely  from  the  infpired  volume,  the  foatcs  of  celellial  wij'dom. 

In  ourlafl  interview,  the  topic  of  our  converfation,  you  will  rtf- 
colIe(ft,  was  the  prailicc  of  our  churches,  in  difpenfing  the  ordinance 
of  bapiifm  to  infants. 

la  the  courle  of  our  reafoning,  I  informed  you  that  I  had,  of  Uie, 
been  particularly  attentive  to  the  rife  of  the  feft,  who  are  ccmmonly 
diftingoifhfd  among  us,  by  the  name  of  baptiib.  I  have  found  ic 
more  difficult  to  invcfligatc  their  origin,  than  I  expctled,  when  I 
firft  examined  the  lubjcd.  With  great  care  and  pains,  have  I  endea* 
voured,  li^r  the  fatiifadion  of  candid  minds,  to  afceriain  the  time, 
manner  and  cccafion  of  their  rife  : — have  aimed  at  a  true,  faithful 
honcft  account,  exlra<flcd  from  a  number  of  very  learned  authori, 
wiiofc  names  will  be  mentioned  in  their  proper  place.  Brevity  and 
candor  have  been  ftudicd  :  a  large  volume  might  have  cafily  bcea 
compicd. 

I  would  applaud  your  purpo(c  to  abide  by  the  truth,  let  it  malc« 
for  or  againll  you,  let  in)C  on  which  Ude  of  the  litigated  queftion  it 
may. — Happy  f:r  the  world  !  happy  for  the  church  1  and  happy  for 

individuals  \ 


I  JsJ 

IhdivTduats  TIT  all,  "wMliavc  rcrupTes^'upon  tBcTr  tnrnd^T a^iout  Hie 
validicy  of  irifanit  baplifm,  were  equally  candid,  moderace  and  unpre- 
judiced. If  it  be  not  a  fcripture  pradlice,  I  would  be  among  the 
mod  zealous  to  explode  it.  In  the  mean  time,  I  would  treat  our  hon- 
eft,  but  erring  aniipsdobaptiftical  brethren,  with  tcndernefs.  Beyond 
a  doubt  the -aim  of  «any  of  them  is  pdre  ;  and  their  wi(h  to  pre- 
fcrvc  the  ordinances  from  pollution,  and  the  gofpe!  from  mixtures  of 
human  inventions  and  traditions,  deferves  conamendation.  But  per- 
sons, who  a£l  from  the  beil  motives,  may  labour  under  many  and 
grcfs  errors. — The  following  hiftory  of  the  krii  appearing  and  behav- 
iour of  the  fe£l,  called  a&abapUft$>  is  certainly  interefling  to  all  : 
I  flatter  isyfelf  will  be  pleating  to  you,  and  may  tend  to  throw  light 
on  what  has  been  involved  in  adcgrcc  of  obfcurity. 

The  queftion  before  U8,  now  is,  when  did-th*  ikft,  who  deny  bap- 
tifm  to  the  infant  feed  of  believers^  arife  in  the  church  of  Chrifl  ? 
Did  the  church,  in  its  earlieft  and  pureft  ages,  univerfally  receive  the 
children  of  chriftian  parents  to  the  holy  facrament  of  baptifm  ?— 
They  undoubtedly  did.— And  the  following  ancient  writers 
arc  cited  and  appealed  to,  as  witneiTes  of  this  faft,  (viz  )  the  admiflion 
of  the  infants  of  believing  parents  to  baptifm,  in  the  primitive 
church.  Whether  they  were  admitted  or  not,  is  a  thing  which  could 
not  but  be  publicly  and  perfectly  known,  in  the  times  near  to  the 
Apoilles.  Ic  is  impoflibley  in  the  nature  of  the  cafe,  that  chriftians* 
in  the  iirft  ages,  fhould  be  deceived  or  miftaken  in  this  matter 
concerning  the  praflice  of  the  churches,  which  were  formed 
by  the  Apoftles,  throughout  the  world.  And,  if  infant  baptifm 
were  not  the  practice  of  the  Apoftles  and  Evaogelifts,  it  is  utterly 
unaccountable,  how  it  came  fo  foon  to  be  adopted,  as  we  find,  by 
uhcontrolable  teftimonie«,  it  was. 

To  invalidate  this  evidence  of  the  ancient  fathers,  thofe  who  op- 
pofe  infant  baptifm,  tell  us,  *  They  were  weak  men  :  held  foolifa 
i^and  abfurd  opinions  :  interpreted  fcripiure  flrangely  and  whimfi- 
•  cally  :  and,  after  all,  fay  but  little  about  infant  bapiifn:.'  We  do 
not  appeal  to  them,  in  any  other  light,  than  as  witnefies  to  a  public 
ftanding  fad,  of  which  they  could  not  but  be  competent  Judges,  and 
w^lch  they  muft  abfolutely  know, — muft  know,  as  fully  and  clearly, 
as  whether  the  fan  in  the  firmament  rofc  and  let,  in  their  times,  as 
wc  kno«f  it  ^oes  in  ours. — Juftin  Martyr,'  who  wrote  only  forty 
♦ears  after  the  Apoftolic  age,  in  his  fecond  apology,  mentions, 
^  *  chriftians  wdo  in  their  infancy  had  been  pro/fly feJ  to  Chrlft.*  Pro- 
JetyttJ  they  could  not  be,   without  baptifm  ;  for  all  knowr,   that  the 


C   65   3 

cnly  way  of  being  pro/elytes  to  the  chriftian  religion,  13  by  bip- 
tifm. — IrenaEJs,  who  wrote  fixty-fcven  years  after  the  Apoftlcs,  and 
vas  born  before  the  death  of  St.  John,  in  his  third  book  dgainll 
heretics,   thirty-ninth  chapter,   fays,  that   •  Chrift  came   to  fave   all 

*  pcrfons  by  himfclf ;   all,  I  mean,    who  are    baptizld    unto   God, 

*  I  nfa:iT£,  and  little  ones,  and  youths,  and  elder  perfons.' — Ter- 
tuliian,  who  flourifhed  about  an  hundred  years  after  the  Apollles,  is 
the  only  pcrfon  among  the  ancients,  who  advifes,  to  *  defer  the  bap- 

•  tifm  of  infants,  except  in  cafes  of  necefiity  or  in  danger  of  death.* 
Piece  on  baptifm,  eighteenth  chapter.— Origen,  who  lived  one  hun- 
dred and  ten  years  after  the  Apoftles,  in  his  8  homily  on  Levit. 
12.  fpeaking  of  the  pollution  which  cleaves  to  infants,  fays,  '  befides 
'  this  ;  alfo  let  it  be  confidered,  what  is  the  reafon,  that  whereas  the 
'  baptifm  of  the  church  is  given  for  forgivencfs,  infants    alfo,  by 

*  the  ufage  of  thechurch,  are  baptized  :  when  if  there  were  nothing  ia 

*  infants,  which  wanted  forgivenefs  and  mercy,  the  grace  of  bapcifoi 

•  would  be  needlefs  to  them.' — And,  again  j  *  i  n  pants  are  baptized 

•  for  the  remiffion  of  fin.  Of  what  fin  }  Or  when  have  they  finned  ? 
'  Or  how  can  any  reafon  of  the  layer  hold  good  in  their  cafe  ?  But, 

*  according  to  that  fenfe  before  mentioned,  none  is  free  from  pollution, 

•  though  his  life  be  but  the  length  of  one  day  upon  the   earth.      And 

•  it  is  for  that  reafon,  that  infants  arc  baptized,  becaufe  by  the 
'  facraraent  of  baptifm  the  pollution  of  our  birth  is  taken  away.* 
In  another  treatifc  he  fays,  that  the  '  church  had  from  the  Apof- 
'  ties  a  tradition  or  command  to  give  baptifm  to  infants.*— 
This  teftimony  from  O^igca  is  a  full  proof,  that  the  baptifm  of 
infants  was  the  ftanding  cullom  of  his  day  ;  and  he  was  born  but 
eighty-five  years  after  the  age  of  the  Apoftles.  He  was  prefident  of 
the  fchool  at  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  where  he  principally  lived.  He 
was  acquainted  with  the  mod  noted  churches  in  all  the  world. 

Doflor  Gale,  a  learned  anabaptifl,  has  ventured  to  difpute  the  above 
authorities,  but  prefumes  not  to  conteft  thofe  which  follow  from  Cy> 
prian  and  Auftin. — Doftor  j  ohn  Gill,  of  London,  alfo,  here  I  may  re- 
mark, allows  Origen's  leftimony  and  that  of  Cyprian  and  Audin.  Cy- 
prian ,  who  wrote  150  years  after,  what  is  called  the  Apollolic  age, 
gives  a  mod  indubitable  tcdimony  to  this  {\^,  (viz.)  that  the  baptifm 
of  1  NF  A  NTS  was  the  univcrfal,  cftablifried  pradice  of  the  church,  in 
his  day. 

In  the  year  2^3,  a  council  of  66  BifhopJ  convened  at  Carthage  in 
Africa,  where  Cyprian  was  Bifhop  or  Minider,  to  confidcr  this  quef- 
ticn,  whether  baptifm  txiight  lawfully  be  adminida^Cd  to  infants,  till 
they  were  eight  days  old,  according  to  the  law  of  circuracirion.--Thc 

council 


[    ^7     ] 

council  unaniraoufly  decreed,  rhat  the  baptifm  of  infants  was  not  to  he 
delayed  till  the  eighth  day.     The  occafion  of  that  famous  council's  be- 
ing convened,  was  thi^  ;  Fidus,  a  country  Bifhep,  doubted  whether  in- 
fants might  lawfully  be  baptized,  till  eight  days  old.   The  time  of  the 
fitting  of  this  ccclefiaftical  council  was  only  an  hundred  and  fifcy  year* 
after  the  Apoflolic  age,  aodfomc  of  the  members  who  compofed  if,  may 
reafonably  be  fuppofed,  fevcnty  or  eighty  years  old  ;  and  if  they* were 
baptized  in  their   infancy,    as  they  undoubtedly  ivere,  it  carries  up 
thepraaiceof  receiving  INFANTS  to  the  facrament  cf  baptifm,   to 
within  eighty  years  of  the  Apoflles  themfelves  :    and,  at   the  time  of 
their  infancy,  there  were  many  alive,  who  were  born  in  the  very  agp 
of  the  Apoflles  ;  and  muft  infallibly  know,  what  the  Apoftlcs  praflicc 
and  appointment  were.    The  Clementine  conftitutions,  a  book  thought 
by  fome  to  be  of  great  antiquity,  and  acknowledged  by  all,   to  be  ex- 
tant io  the   fourth  or   fifth  century,  and  to  contain  a   good  account  of 
the  ancient  difcipline   and  praftices  of  the  church,  have  this  exprcfa 
command  :—'  Baptize  your  infants  and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
'  and   admonition  of  the  Lord  ;  for,   he  fays,   fufFer  little  children  to 
*  come   unto  me,  and  forbid  them  net.* — There  are  fcvcral  other  tcf- 

timonies  from  Clemens  Alexandrinus — Gregory  Nazianzcn — Bafil 

Arabrofe — Chryro{lom~-and  Jerom,  mod  full  to  the  purpofq,  but  too. 
long  to  be  here  infertcd.     I  (hall  clofe  this  view  of  the  witncfTcs  from 
ancient  monuments  and   records,   by   inflancing  a  very  fin^^ular  one 
from   the  writings  of  Auflin  and  Pelagius,  about  300  years  after  the 
Apoftles.     I  adduce  it,  to  demonftrate  to  all  unprejudiced  acd  candid 
perfons  in  the  world,  that  b  a  ptizi  ng  infants  was  praftjfcd  from 
the  firft  fetting  up  of  the  chriftian  religion. — Auttin  and  Fcligius,  all 
will  own,  were  two  very  able  and  fubcle  difputants.     The  firmer.  In 
his   controverfy  with  the  latter  about  the  dodrinc   of  origingl  fin,  to 
prove  infants    afFedled  wich   it,    frequently  and    with  great  triumph, 
urges  their  baptifm,  demanding,    '  why  infants  are  baptized  for  the 
remiffion  of  fin,   if  they   have  none.'     The  acute  Pelagius  ii  exceed- 
ingly embarrafTed  by  the  argument.     All  fee  how  much  it  concerned 
him  to  deny  the  baptifm   of  infants,   if  there  had  been   any  polUble 
ground  for  it,  ant/io  do  all  that  in  him  lay,  to  invalidate  and  difprovc 
it.     Had  it  been    an  innovation,   a  d  e  r  a  rtur  e  from  toe  Apof- 
tolic  prafticc,  as    the   modern  anabaptllls  pretend,   though  againil  all 
antiquity,  it  is  impclTible  but  fo  very  learned    and  acute  a   inan,  as 
Pelagius,  who  lived  fo  near  the  Apoftle?,  and  had  been  pcrfonally  ac- 
quainted with  fome   of  the  moft  noted   churches  in  Europe,  Afia  and 
Africa,  muft  have  been  able  to  difcovcr  it,   and  both  to  have,  and  to 
|ive  fome  Ilrong  fafpicion  of  it.    But  docs  this  wife  and  ftron^-fightcd 

difpatanc 


[     68     ] 

di/pafant  lUerrpt  any  thing  of  this  kind  ?  So  far  from  it,  tbit  (otna 
of  his  adverfaries  having  drawn,  as  a  confequence  of  his  opinion,  that 
infants  are  not  to  be  baptized,  he  warmly  difclaims  it,  and,  with  in- 
dignation, complains  that  he  had  been  flanderoufly  reprefentcd  by 
men,  as  denying  the  f-cramcnt  of  baptifm  to  infants,  and  promifing 
fhe  kingdom  of  heaven  to  any,  without  the  redcnapiion  of  Chrift  ; 
and  adds,   *  that  he  never  heard,    no  not  any    impioQi   herclic,   who 

*  would  fay,    that  which  he   had  mentioned,  (viz.)    that   unbaptizcd 

*  infants  are  not  liable  to  the  condenination  of  the  firft  man,  and  that 
«  they  are  no:  to  be  clcanfed  by  the  regeneration  of  baptifm.' — He 
then  proceeds,  *  who  is  (o  ignorant  of  that  which  is  read  in  the  gof- 

*  pel,  as  I  do  not  fay,  boldly  to  affirm,  but  even  lightly  to  fuggeft,  or 

*  wen  to  imagine  fuch  a  thing  ;*  *,  in  a  word  who  can  be  fo  impioas, 
•as    to  hinder  INFANTS    from  being  baptized,    and  born  again  in 

*  Chrid,  and  fo  make  them  mifs  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ?'  AuAin  on 
original  Hn. 

Such  clear,  abundant,  full  proof  Is  there,  that  infant?  were  baptis- 
ed from  the  beginning  of  chridianity,  and  is  not  a  novel  praAice,  in- 
troduced by  the  corruptions  of  religion,  and  by  lordly  cede fi allies,  to 
fcrve  a  turn. 

I  am.  Sir,  with  thcgrcateft  edeem, 

your's  in  thegofpcl. 
Dscta:her  3,  1788. 


L  E  T  T  E  R     IL 

Six, 

1  GO  on  with  the  hiftory  propofed,  coocernicg  which,  ypu 
fcf  m  ib  anxious.  All  fober  and  honcft  enquirers  after  troth  muft  be 
equally  anxious,  en  a  poiat  fo  material  in  thcdifputc  abov:t  the  validity 
of  infant  bapiilrn.  Well  then,  all  the  churche:  throughout  all  coun- 
tries, tipcn  the  firft  tctting  up  of  chriftianity,  were,  it  is  moft  certain, 
forroei  upon  the  fajne  model,  and  either  admitted  infants  to,  or  rc- 
jcdlcd  them  from,  the  facrament  of  baptifm.  And  how  the  Apoflics 
and  Kvamgclifts  organized  ^t  churches,  all  the  members  ofthrm 
perfcdiy  knew.  The  church  at  Corinth — at  Ephefus — at  Thefl"aia- 
nica — at  Rome — at  Colofs — and  Galatia,  certainly  knew,  whether 
Paul  and  his  companions,  when  he  baptised  them,  baptized  alfo  their 
JRfant5,  or  excluded  them  from  the  covenant.  In  the  next  age,  there 
could  bs'no  niiilake  or  ignorance  as  to  this  fa6t,  whether  infants  were 
oj  were  not  adwiiicd  to  baptifm.     It  was  fo  plain  a  fafl,  and  of  fuch 

a 


a  nature,  as  mnfl  be  known  by  every  chrllUan  then  living  on  tbc 
earth.  If  the  ApoftJes  did  not  admit  them,  we  cannot  conceive,  hovr 
they  fhould  gain  admiflion  fo  early,  lb  extenfively.  To  univerfaliy,  as 
we  find,  by  full  evidence,  they  aflually  did.  And,  fuppofc  they  did 
not  admit  thert,  how  would  thofe,  who  firft  attempted  to  bring  them 
forward,  be  rCcitfived  ^  Would  not  all  cry  out  agaioft  fuch  innovation  ; 
and  demand  *  by  what  authority  they  a£led  ?  Do  we  not  know  they 
"^  ought  to  -be  excluded  ?  Look  into  all  the  churches  throughout  the 
'world  :  into  Syria,  Paleftfhc,  Egypt,  Greece,  Italy,  Africa,  Spaio» 

*  and   you  will' find  there  nevef' was  fuch  a  thing  known  nor  heard  of 

*  among  chriltians,  asBAETiziNc  an  infant.*  What,  I  greatly 
wonder,  could  the  firft  baptizers  of  infants  polTibly  reply  ? 

Doflor  Gill  of  London,  who  was  one  of  the  moil  vehement  af- 
ferlers  of  adult  baptifm  only,  that  ever  appealed,  owns  that  infant 
baptifm  was  the  pradlice  of  the  church  univcrfally,  from  the  third  to 
the  eleventh  century  ;  but  contends,  with  all  his  might,  that  the 
Piedmontefe  chriftians  rejefted  it,  and  prad^ifed  on  the  plan  of  adult 
baptifm  only. — To  this  we  (hall  come  direftiy.  Here,  however, 
though  a  digreflion,  it  may  be  proper  to  mention  the  famous  William 
V/hifton,  who  forfook  the  epifcopal  eftablilhment,  and  wtnt  over  to 
the  fmall  fcft  of  anabaptiib  in  England.  He  was  a  very  learned  man, 
a  great  aftronoraer,  and  well  verfed  in  the  ancient  fathers.  In  his  ad- 
drefs  to  the  communion  of  the  baptifts,  he  declares,  •  that  Dr.  Wall's 
f  hiftory  of  infant  baptifm,  as  to  the  fafls,  appeared  to  him,  moft  ac- 
«  curately  done,  and  might  be  depended  on  by  the  baptifts  themfclvcs.* 
Memoirs  of  his  life,  part  IL  page  461.  This  gentleman,  in  a  piece 
intitled  Prim-iti-vc  Infant  Baptifm  Revived ,  notwithllanding  the  above 
declaration,  pretends  lo  2i  great  and  ne-iv  difca very  {v\%  )  tha?  when 
the  ancient  fathers  fpeak  of  infants  being  baptized,  they  mean  rot 
infants  in  years,  but  in  knowledge  ;  and  fays,  he  communicated  th'tf 
difcovery  to  the  learned  men,  Biftiop  Hoadly,  and  Dr.  Clark  ;  ani 
they  confented  to  it  as  julV  ;  and  a! fo  to  vhe  great  Sir  Ifaac  Nc*ton, 
defiring  his  opinion  upon  it.  The  anfwcr  returned  was,  that  they 
both  had  njade  the  difcovery  before. — I  am  not  obliged  to  clear  Mr. 
Whifton  from  his  inconfiftence.  As  to  his  pretended  ^nat  dfo'-jny, 
it  deferves  only  the  fmilc  of  contempt.  Let  the  fathers  fppak  for 
themfelves.  I  am  fenfible  that  ibmc  vrry  eminent  f  a^dobaptills  have 
c.^prefTcd  fome  doubt  about  the  ancient  pr3(J\ire  of  the  church,  in  the 
ages  near  the  Apoflles,  as  to  baptizing  of  infants,  which  may  be  Teen 
in  Mr.  Rutherford's  invalidity  of  infant  baptifm.  He  mentions  Doilof 
Da  Veil,  Hammond,  Bi(hop  Taylor,  Groiius,  rnJ  fcvcral  oihcrr. 
Bat  the  eyidencc  is  not  the  Icfs  clear,  bccaufe  feme  have  not  iir:)»vrd 

it 


I      73      3 

Jc  fo  be  foil.  It  would  be  Orange  indeed,  if  fonflc  who  had  not  ftudi«d 
th2  matter,  fhould  exprcfs  doubts.  But,  of  ail  pretended  dis- 
coveries, ihat  of  Whifton's  above  named,  is  moft  abi'urd,  and  ap- 
pears to  be  ibe  refulr  ol  a  dreadful  neceflity.  He  felt  the  dilemma  io 
Hfhich  he  was  invoived.  He  muft  either  give  up  aialt  bapiiiir.,  and 
change  hia  religion  agarn,  or  find  out  that  all  the  fathers,  in  ihe 
primitive  ages,  when  they  ufcd  the  word  infants^  meant  young  peo- 
ple,   or  ignorant  old   people,    metaphorical  infants. Gonial:   the 

fathers;  confult  all  ecclefiaftical  hiftory,  and  you  will  find  ihc  va- 
lidity and  lawfulnefs  of  infant  bapiifm,  were  never  denied  by 
any  body  of  chrirtians,  or  churches,  till  about  eleven  h  u  n.- 
BR.ED  AND  THIRTY  ycars  after  Chrift.  And  then  only  bv  one 
Peter  de  Bruis  in  France,  with  his  followers,  a  fmali  fed,  who 
held  that  no  infants  were  faved,  and  many  oiher  ftrsnge  and  £.b. 
furd  tenets.  This  fmall  feft  foon  dwindled  to  nothing.  After  this, 
there  cannot  be  found  any  well  vouched  inilance  of  a  church  or 
auv  number  of  chriftians,  who  denied  infant  bapcifm,  uoiefs 
they  denied  all  water-baptifm  and  external  adminiilratioBS,  tiil 
the  rifing  of  the  German  anabapiiils.  Do^lor  Wall  in  his  hiftory  of 
infant  baptifra,  a  moft  learned  and  judicions  work,  and  which  Mr. 
WhiiloD,  the  iiioll  learned  of  the  enemies  of  infant  bapiilm,  al- 
lows, as  above  remarked,  to  be  good  and  genuiuc,  has  this  pafifage — 
Part  If.  chap.  jo.  fe61.  1.  "  For  the  fiffl  four  hundred  ycars,  there 
•appears  only  one  man,  Tertullian,   that  advifed  the  delay  of  infant 

•  baptifm,  in  fome  cafes  ;  and  one  Gregory,   that  did,  perhaps,  prac- 

•  ti.''e  fuch  delay  in  the  cafe  of  his  children  :  bat  no  focieiy  fo  thinking, . 

•  or  fo  praflifmg,  nor  no  one  man  fo  frying,  that  it  was  unlawful  to 
«  baptize  infants.     In  the  next  seven  hundred   years,    there  is 

•  not  {a  much  as  one  man  to  be  found,    that  cither  fpoke   for  or  prac- 

•  lifed   fuch  delay,  but    all   on  the  contrary.      And  when,    about  the 

•  year    eleven    hundred    and   thirty,    one    iecl  among    the 

•  VValdeofes  declared  againfl  the  baptizing  of  infants,  as  being  inca- 

•  pablc   of  falvation  ;  the    main    body  of  that    people   rejedcd   their 

•  opinion.     And  they  of  ihcra  that  held  that  opinion,  cjuickly  dwin- 

•  died  away  and  difappeared.'  And  there  were  no  more  heard  of  who 
held  ihat  tenet,  &c.  till  the  riUng  of  the  German  anabapiirts,  about 
4C0  ycars   after,  or  in    15Z2. 

This  Is  the  origin,  according  to  the  bfft  authenticated  hiilorics  of 
the  feit,  vi  Igarly  ca  KJ  among   us,  baptirts. 

And  to  this  the  bapii^s  can  oppofc  nothing  worthy  of  credit,  except 
fome  au;hors,  who  tell  about  baptizing  adtilts,  which  is  nothing  to 
the  pvrp>»fc  :  bfcaufe  all  agree  that  unbap'.ized  adults,  as  well  a?,  in- 
fant, arc  :he  fubjcth  of  ihc  ordinance  cf  bap'.ifm.  Some 


C    7«     J 

Some  alfo  have  fpoken  againft  baptifm  of  Infants,  who  lilye!>€ea 
agaJnll  all  water  baptiira  ;  and  held  that  there  are  no  outward  otdi* 
nances.  Mr,  Dickinion,  in  a  well  written  dialogue,  page  7,  fays. 
*  You  cinnot  pretend  that  the  pra<^ice  of  baptizing  infants,  was  ever 
called  in  queftioii,  or  made  matter  of  debate  in  the  ctKirch,  till  itm 
aiad  men  in  MitnstE'R,  who  v^cre  the  fcanda!  of  the  reformaiion,  (et 
thenifclves  againft  this  pracflice,  as  well  as  the  other  ordinances  of  tie 
gofpel.  You  muft  allow  therefore^  that  from  the  fourth  century  to  th» 
fixteenrh,  is  more  than  eleven  hundred  year^  ;  now  during  this  Icog 
period,  what  became  of  our  blelTed  Saviour's  promife  to  be  with  hi« 
minifters  alnvays  in  the  adminiftration  of  this  ordinance  ?  I  now  de- 
mand of  yoa  an  anfwer,  if  any  can  be  given,  to  this  qucliion,  was  our 
blefied  Saviour  with  his  minifters,  in  the  adminiliration  of  baptiici, 
during  this  period,  or  was  he  not  ?  If  you  acfwer  in  the  affirmative, 
you  acknowlege  infant  baptifm  to  be  his  inftituiion  ;  if  you  anfAcr 
in   the   negative,  you  call  his  veracity  and  faiihfulnefs  in  queUion.* 

Mr.  Clark,  in  his  anfwer  to  Dr.  Gil),  who  attacked  the  above- 
mentioned  dialogue  with  great  fury,  feems  to  have  deeply  ftudied  the 
controverfy,  and  did  honor  to  hlmfelf  and  the  caufe  ;  he  coincides  witb 
the  learned  writer,  and  proves  to  the  fatisfaftion  of  the  candid,  ihat  ic 
is,  at  lea'ft,  fomewhat  doubtful,  whether  that  fe<fl  among  the  Waldcnfes, 
who,  it  is  pretended,  denied  infant  baptifm,  upon  this  ground,  that 
they  were  incapable  of  falvation,  did  deny  it  or  not.  For  it  is  mat- 
ter of  fa<ft,  that  the  whole  body  of  that  people,  known  by  the  name  of 
Waldenfes,  were  greatly  flandered  by  their  popifh  opponents,  who  en- 
deavored to  fix  upon  them  all  the  horrible  tenets  they  could.  And, 
perhaps,  charging  them  with  a  denial  of  infant  baptifm  was,  among 
other  things,  a  falfe  charge.  It  is  impoiiible  to  look  intot^t  dark 
age,  and  know  the  exa^  truth. 

Mr.  Clark,  after  a  long  and  labored  confutation  of  Do6or  Gill, 
thus   exprelTes   himfelf^*  Nor  is   there  any   account  for  the  firfl^co 

*  years  after  Chrift,  nor  any  (hadow  of  proof,    that  there   was  any  fed 

*  of  chrillians,  or  body  of  men,    that  may  be  called  a  church,  owning 

*  chriftian  baptifm,  that  denied  it  to  infants — Nor  any  one  man.  in 
'  that  period,    that  objedled  againfl  it,  except  Tertulllao,  nor  did  he 

*  condemn  it,  as  unlawful,  but  only  advifing  the  delay  of  it,  as  more 
'  profitable.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence  at  all,  that  it  was  oppofcd  by 
'  any  one  man,    for  the  fpace  of  fix  or  feven  hundred  years  from  that 

*  period  ;  but  the  prat^lice  continued,  in  the  univerfal  church,  without 

*  interruption  or  exception,    fo  far    as  can   be  known  ^om    the  wric- 

*  ings  and   monuments  of  antiquity,  till  Peter  Bruis  and  his  followers 

*  ia  France,  in  the  12th  century,  arc  faid  to  renounce  :r.  a  ie(\  that 

*  ccn tinted 


f  1^  1 

•-coritinoed  biit  a  ftori  time,  a»»d  dwindled  away  ;  whcretf  yet  t!la^e  \s 
•but  probable  evidence,  at  beft.     And,  is  to  the  Waldenfes,  Lntiicf*s 

•  forerunners,   iheir  oppbfing  irifaivt  ba^Jtifrtr,:  :^nd  b«iog^  Yound-  onlj 

•  in  the  praftice  of  adaU  baptifm,  for  ali-thai^lias  hl«M«rio  speared, 
♦"deferx-es  no  better  name,  than  that  of'a  chfiiitf^a  of  gfOundlefs  fic- 
tion,* pages  179,  180.  But  allawinifthe  ttioft,^<fcefe  u  ih>  account, 
in  hiftory,  of  any  who  rejedled  irfar.t  •bfljj'iirm  YiH -1 130.  A  few 
wHd  and  fanatical  individuals  among  it4>cfoHbw€?s"<)f  Waldo,  and 
fhofe  called  Petrobrufians,  from  Peter  Bruis,  pcrhaf>l  did  rejedl  in- 
/iahfs.  becaufe  they  held  that^*rt>y  ctm^d  not  befavcd.  The  body  of 
the  Wald«nfe8  and  Albigenfesrhfldl^lnfaftl  bapiifta.  Wall's  hiao- 
rjr,  part  II.  chap.  7.^*-I-  flatted  1117-  Letter  with  this  account,  and 
referve  for  the  fubjefl  of  (hcnntfli  tbc^fiiig  of  ibc  GermaB  anabap* 
liiisaod  iheif  condiid^^ -•  r<in/*^v   Vvj  rtv"^^ 


,1,.     iiBW— — — WW 


LETTER    IIL 

Sin, 

In  my  laft,  we  looked  back  for  a  remote  rife  of  the  (t&.  of  an* 
fibaprin?,  but  could  find  no  hint  of  it,  till  thtf  year  eleven  bun- 
i>RE!>  AND  THIRTY,  whctt  a  fe w  appeared  for  a  time  amang  the 
Petrobrofians.— We  come  now  to  a  more  remarkable  period. 

Doftor  Robertfon,  in  his  hirtory  of  Charles  V.  givei  a  very  live- 
ly and  aff*e£ting  defcripiion  of  the  fcdillons  and  difturbances,  occa- 
fioned  by  them  in  Germany,  in  15^5  ;  and  is  of  the  opinion  that  they 
then  FIRST  arofe.  See  his  hiftory  of  Charles  V.  vol.  II.  from  page 
268    to   276.  'f,if)i<;sm  li'n )  y 

:\Djdor  Mo(hiem  is  cf  the  opioion,  that  their  origin  is  obfcurcand 
lies  concealed  in  the  remote  depths  of  antiquity  ;  but  after  aticntiyr- 
ly.  <vcighing  all  the  writers,  on  both  fides,  and  all  they  have  flid, 
thinks  it  by  far  the  mod  probable,  that  the  anabaptifts  and  Meno- 
niies  are  the  offspring  of  the  Petrobrufian?,  and  that  they  firft  arofc  in 
the  i-ih  century,  as  proved  in  my  laft  letter.  Sec  his  ecclefiallical 
hlftory,  a  juftly  celebrated  work,  under  the  head  of  the  hiUorf  of  l|ic 
Anabapiills  orMcnonites,  page  134,  135,  vol.  IV.  2d  edition.  He 
/ixes  the  period of!.iheir  rile  in.- Germany  Toon  after  ihedawpof^c 
reformation,  wbev^Latbtr  aroie  to  fet  bounds  to  the  amhicioa^f^ 
Rome.     -  •     '"^  v'»^,  *' v'»^<    »M  .    »'•••.  .    ■•■»    y, 


[    73    ] 

A  little  before  the  feformation,  which  was  in  the  beginhlfig  ofihi 
i6th  century,  there  were  great  difconicnts  and  murmurings  among 
the  Boors,  or  country  pesfants  in  Germany,  wiio  were  very  grievoufl*^ 
opprefled  by  their,  iyrannical  princes  and  opulent  landlordi.  Whea 
Lutner  fet  on  foot  his  reformation  in  the  year  15 17,  which  foon  tnade 
a  prodigious  noiie  and  awakened  general  attention,  there  arofe  feve- 
ral  fanatical  teachers,  who,  talcing  advantage  of  the  ferments  and 
commotions  of  the  people,  began  to  diffeminatc  among  them  th^  mcft 
feditious  opinion*. 

The  mod  diftinguilhed  of  thefe  teachers,  were  Nicholas  Storck  5 
Mark  Stuben>  and  Thomas  Monizer.  They  made  their  public  ap- 
pearance about  the  year  1-521,  dnd  divulged  anftong  the  difcontented 
people,  feveral  very  pernicious .doftrin^s,,  among  which  were  ihsle  : 
t^at  c^njfians  zvere  free  from  all  fuhjeSiofi  to  frlntiSt'^ihat  then  ought 
to  be  a  community  of  goods — and  an  equal  dtfri Nation  of  properly .  B/ 
means  of  fuch  do*^rines,  which  were  highly  plcafing  in  ihofe  times  of 
oppreflion  and  difcont?rlt,  th^fe  teachers  were  able  foon  to  colleft  an 
immcnfe  number  of  followers.  Lu:her,  in  ih?  year  1520,  publKhcd 
his  book  of  chriflian  liberty,  in  which  he  afferted  and  rhaintained  the 
right  of  all  chriftians,  to  enjoy  a  freedom  from  that  cruel  yoke  of  pa- 
pal tyranny,  and  that  galling  burden  of  hiiman  inventions  and  arbi- 
trary uperftitions,  with  which  men's  confcience  had  long  been  loaded  ; 
though,  at  the  fame  time,  he  inculcated  obedience  and  fubjcdlioo  tcj 
princes  and  magidrates,  iu  things  of  a  civil  and  temporal  nature. 
But  thefe  fanatical  teachers,  impioufly  pretending  to  inspiration 
and  SECRET  converse  with  the  deity,  complained,  tha: 
Luther  had  flopped  (hort  of  the  truth  ;  and  they  extended  his  codlrinc 
of  liberty  t<S  things  temporal,  as  wc!l  as  fpiriiual.  They  taught 
their  followers,  not  only  to  renounce  the  Romifh  tyranny,  but  to  dc- 
fpifs  the  authority  of  the  civil  magiftrate* 

Muntzer  the  chief  leader  of  the  party,  publicly  anrdunced  him- 
felf  a  man  divinely  raifed  up  to  chaftile  and  depcfe  wicked  princes, 
affuming  this  odd  and  fantaftic  title:  the  sword  of  the  Lord 
AND  OF  Gideon.  He  loudly  and  vehemently  declaimed  againfl: 
the  government  of  the  princes,  as  cruel  and  tyrannical,  ard  no  long- 
er to  be  endured  by  chrillians,  who  are  called  to  liberty  and  bound 
to  Hand  fall  therein.  And,  having  the  multitude  anacbcd  to  hl» 
perfon  and  principles,  he  boldly  inculcated  on  them  j  that  fil!  thinrs 
^wtrt  hy  nature  fee  and  comnon  to  ell  :  that  in  tkc  kingdom  of  Chriji, 
thin  ought  to  he  no  difiiniiion  of  rich  and  poor,  great  andfmnll,  but  a 
firftSi  equality  :  and   that  they  rjjere   bound  to  fhn  \t  cjf  the  dominion  of 

I  fnnce: 


t    74     J 

priHces  .\ni  ih$  txaPAng  tf  landlords »  as  vuell  at  the  tjrannj  c/  the  Pa^i, 
and  reduce  thi/igs  to  a  righteous  level. 

Infpirei  wiih  thefc  levelling  priaciplcs,  the  multitude  grew  more 
lod  more  tumultuous,  and  went  on,  under  ihc'ir  tnthufuftic  leader, 
committing  the  moll  horrible  diforders,  dcpofinjg^ipagiftraLea,  rifling 
mpnaftcrics,  pillaging  private  houfes,  plundering  gOQds,  and  difp«fing 
of  property,  according  to  their  own  wanton  plcafurc. 

I^untzcr,  having  fetout  on  feditiou5  prjnciplcit^gaiuft  the  govern- 
ment, ivas  not  10  be  reflrained  by  the  *at,oiugspt  Luther  and  other 
proteHant  reformers,  who  fpared  no  p.^icu  to  reclaim  him  ;  but  in- 
veighing againft  Luther's  reforraauoc^aj?  clT^nually  defective,  he  be- 
gan now  to  confult  wiih  his  accompUces,  abflut  renewing  ihc  church 
to  a  more  /)ure  and perfeSl  mdd.  J^^Csiii  occaGon,  they  came  to  a  re/-, 
oluiion  tobaptize  anew  all  tbofi^  wj^pjfifned  their  party,  thinking  ibi%. 
a  proper  expedient^  lo  ftcuce,,|l)em  Jq  ^b^eir  intereft;  and  left  any 
fcruples  ofconfcience,  on  account  of  former  baptifm,  (hould  provc.au 
obllacle  to  the  defign,  they  declaimed  ajainft  infant  baptiim,  as  a  nul- 
lity, both  ufclefs  and  unlawful,  becaufe  infaiits  were  not  capable  of  un- 
dcrftmding  the  nature  and  defign  of  that  facrament.  They  urged 
that  the  adults  only,  who  were  able  to  judge  and  cbufe  for  ihcmfelves, 
ought  to  be  admitted  to  it  ;  and  therefore  baptifra  in  infancy,  being 
a  nullity,    could   be  no  reafon  againft   receiving    baptifm  at  adult 

This  notion  took  and  fprcad  mightily,  in  that  ignorant  andenihu- 
fiallic  period  ;  efpecially  among  thofc,  who,  inflamed  with  political 
rage,  wifhed  to  call  in  the  aid  of  religion,  to  fecond  their  nefarious  pur- 
pofcs.  In  a  fhort  time,  Muntzer  and  his  aflbciatcs  alTembled  a  ncofider- 
able  army,  folcmrly  bound  to  each  other,  by  thisfacramental  rite.  At 
the  head  of  this  army,  he  went  on,  committing  all  iheenormous  crimes 
and  ridiculous  follies,  which  the  moll, pervcrfe  and  infernal  imagina-^ 
lion  could  fuggcll,  till  he  was  defeated  by  the  eledlorof  Saxony,  aodf* 
fome  other  princes,  he  himfelf  taken  and  put  to  death,  and  his  deluded 
followers  fcattercd  in  various  parts.  ^ 

This  defeat  however  did  not  terminate  the  delufion.  After  this, 
many  who  were  infefled  with  the  fame  fadicus  and  enthufiaAic  diforder, 
and  who  had  been  afl'^iciatcs  with  Muntzer,  wandered  about  in  divert 
parts  of  Germany,  fowing  the  feeds  of  error  and  fedition.  They 
gathered  congregations  in  fcveral  places,  and  predicted,  under  pre- 
tence of  n  I VI  N  F.  COM  MUN  ic  ATiONs,  thc  approaching  downfall  of 
princes,  and  deftruftion  cf  civil  magiftracy  :  and,  by*thcir  inflama- 
tory  difcourfe*,  often  excitcd  the  ignorant  multitude  to  tomulti  aid 
rebellion  ;  and  provoked  againft  ihcrofelvcs  the  tengrance  of  the 
civil  authority.  Among 


[    7J     ] 

Among  the  inforriflions  of  this  fcfl,  one  of  tne  mofl  remarkable 
was,  in  the  year  I53J>  ^^^^^  ^  y^^"  after  Muntzer's  defeat.  A  hand- 
ful of  mertj  who' had  gotten  into  their  heads  the  vifiooary  notion  of 
a  new  and  fpiritSi  kingdom,  f^on  to  bs  edablifhed  in  an  extraor- 
<JiQ2ry  manber,*^formtd  themfelves  into  a  fociety,  under  the  guidance 
of  a  few  iTIifet^tc'Icy^h;  '^hofch  out  of  the  populace.  And  they 
perfuaded,  not  only  tH^  ignorant  makitade,  but  even  feveral  among 
the  learned,  that  Munfter  Wat  to  be  the  feat  of  this  new  and  hea. 
VENLY  JsR  XT  SALEM,  whofe*"ghofl!y  dominion  was  to  be  propagated 
thence  to  all  the  ends  of  the  earth.  The  ringleaders  of  this  furious 
tribe,  were  John  Matthias j  John  Soccold,  a  Taylor  of  Leydcn,  Ber- 
nard Cnipperdoling,  a  citizen  of  rank  and  fortune,  and  Rothman, 
a  zealous  proteftant  preacher  in  the  city,  with  fome  others,  whom  the 
Klind  rage  of  cnthufiafm,  or  th^  'ftill  more  culpable  principles  of  fe- 
cfition,  had  embarked  in  this  extravagant  and  defperate  caufe.  Thev 
made  themfelves  maftcrs  of  the  city  of  Munftcr,  depofed  magillraies, 
end  did  every  thing  that  can  ihock  the  human  mind.  John  Boccold  was 
proclaimed  king  and  legiflaior  of  this  new  Hierarchy  :  married 
eleven  wives  (all  of  whom  he  had  at  once)  to  prove  the  lawfulnefs  of 
polygamy  ;  and  cut  off  the  head  of  one  with  his  own  hands,  becaufe  (he 
doubted  his  heavenly  call — behaved  with  the  moft  ftiocking  impiety 
and  tyranny— committed  all  manner  of  wickednefs,  liceniioufnefs, 
and  debauchery,  under  pretence  of  civil  and  chriflian  liberty.— 
But  his  reign  was  rranfitcry,  and  his  end  deplorable.  For  the 
city  ofMunfter  was,  in  the  year  1536,  retakten,  after  a  long  fiegc, 
by  its  bifhop  and  fovereign.  Count  Waldeck  :  the  new  Jerusalem 
of  the  anabaptifts  dedroyed,  and  its  mock-monarch  puniihed  ^ith  a 
noil  painful  and  igominious  death.  The  diforders  occafioned  by  the 
anabaptifts  at  this  period,  not  only  in  Wcftphaiia,  but  alfo  in  other 
places,  {hewed  too  plainly,  to  wfiai  horrid  lengths,  the  pernicious  doc- 
trines of  this  wron^headed  feft  were  adapted  to  lead  the  inconfideraie 
and  unwary  ;  and  therefore,  it  is  not  at  all  to  be  wondered  at,  that  the 
freular  arm  employed  rigorous  meafures  to  extirpate  a  fatftion  which  was 
the  ocafion,  nay,  the  fource  of  unfpeakable  calamities  in  fo  many  coun> 
tries.  Thefe  fanatics,  thus  ofien  defeated  and  difperfed  by  the  powers 
which  they  infujied,  diiTrfminalcd  their  :enets  in  various  parts,  whither 
they  fled  to  efcape  punilhment.  And  probably  their  fufferings,  as  well 
as  feeming  zeal  in  religion,  excited  fome  prejudices  in  their  faveur, 
among  thofe  who  heard  more  of  their  TufFcrings  than  of  their  crimes  ; 
and  thus  contributed  to  their  fucccfs  in  making  profely tcs.  I  acknowjegc 
our  brethren  are  not  anfwerab'c  for  the  extravagances  committed  above 
ZOO  years  ago.     Many  of  them,  I  know,  condemn  foch  irregularitici 

ai 


[    76     ] 

{;3  mtich'ss  wf  do  ;  and  fdnieof  oor  own  denomination  havetfallsQ-in* 
to  as  wild  exceflesEs  any  of  them.  I  have  mentioned  this  piece  of 
hiftury,  not  to  caft  an  odium  on  the  fe6l,  but  merely  to  (howhEhe  lime 
and  manner  of  its  rife.  The  difagreeaLble  circ«n)ibincei  attending  the 
rife  would  not  have  been  introduced,  if  thcy\;hati  nc^beeo'ib  inlerwo-'^fr 
vcn  with  '.he  m&in  thread  of  the  narrativc,':^at  Unjy  cbuld  not  be  en-  • 
tircly  feparatrd.  I  have  cauiioufly  avoided  all  reproachful  and  fevere 
epithets  :  I  full  well  knoV^  that  one  {flan^^Us^f  igOdd  a  v»|ilic  Co  think 
for  himfelf  in  matters  of  relig^ion,^a»  aftmhefr- '-•  ;      !      ^  -    ■ 

In  the ic view  6fthishifkrry,.^oa'f«tllie6c«a{K)n Jind'groandf,  fis  well 
as  time  of  the  rife  bf  the   fefl. — A   psf'ttEtfeE  to  a    more  neak.-- 
int:macv  with  ThE-DEiTV  ^hano-phers  ekjoy  :  secret** 
caitiMUNiCAtldi^sii'WlJfJH^rft-^an'i^isiMil.g-  WORLD  :  visions^I 

dreams,    REVBLATlO:K,AKDTBaLDCL.AIMS     TO       IMMEDIATE 

iKSPiRATiON,  lead  in  afl  feparatioiW  or  fadions  in  religion.     If- 
you  challenge  any  part  of  the  above  hitl(jry^  you  are  invited  to  exam<^^ 
ine  all  the    fathers,  and  other  writers  quoted  :  after  this,  you  will ' 
be  obliged  to  own  the  iruih  of  what  is  above  laid    down.     Candor, 
Sir,  and  faithfulnefs,  and  a  meek  difpofuion  fhould   guide  every  con- 
troverfial  pen.     Whether  mine  has  been  under  this  guidance,  is  Icfc 
for  you  to  decide.     The  above  compilation  wzb  a  laborious  talk,    fmall 
and  inconfiderable,  as  it  may  feem  to  any.  —  I  will  not  trefpafs  any  fur- 
iher,  dear  Sir,  upon  your  patience,  and  conclude,  with  wiftiing  yoo 
cftablifiimcnt  in  the  truth,    and  every  happinefs. — Adieu. 


LETTER    IV. 


IR 


(^  :  .    '•  r^"l5Up  aril  .  '•    -^ri' 

Our  correfpondencc.  on  the;fubjc3  o-f  ibc  Ris?  of  the  J^nji^ 
bapiirts  hath  for   fome  time  been   difcontinued^  I  would  now  refuatjr^ 
it,  and  {rouble  you  fo  far  aj  to  aflc  you  to  peruke  one  letter  more.    Th« 
time  is  now  happily  arrived,  in  which  religious  contrcverfies  are  dif- 
cuffed  with  more  candor  a;id  good   tenipcr  than  formerly.     When  we 
turn  over  the  page  of  polemic  diyiuity,   we   ire  difguftcd   as    well  &i 
grieved  to  find  fo  pyucVlJiiici-i^fi^,  jntollerance  and  evil  fpcajciog,  ia 
ihofc  who  profef;  t#  be  honcjl  cn^uireri  after  truth  and  duty  ;    to  h/g 
meek  follo^eri,  of  a  Jowly  Redc,enicr  i  ?aci  to  feel  the  pov*'er  of  his  rpij^ 
ligion,  which  is  t  feti^ioacf  j^^iccapd^opcj-will,  of  forbearaucc^a^. 
::vc,  cf  geqilcnefs  and  |jpasfc|sity.     ^hi  r^gku  cf  man  and  ;hc  righ^, 

of 


['  77    ] 

of  coftfciBflcc,  civil  liberty  and  religious  freedom,  are  ably  pletded  b  / 
the  prefent  day  ;  and  it  is  hoped,  in  das  time,  by  the  favor  of  an  in*r. 
dalgcnt  Heaven^  th«9pf0grefs  of  free  enquiry,  the  empire  cf  rcalon^  r{ 
and  infla£atte©f -gr<iciei;'wiU  be  univerfiilly  di^ufed.  Happy  era,  if  ail 
the  human  lace-ftlight  iijcgin  to  tafte  the  fiveetsof  civil  liberty  and  ; 
equal  gover^m^t^  and  ZQ>i(^ht  beliold  the  dawnfal  of  tyranny  and  f(i«v 
perftition-!?  h'^.l-.Bf.-io'j-i  llg  b'^fo-jr  •••"k.  ■  •  n-  >  v'-iij 

Refolaiionaliila  BwHtiplyeu^Qitw  aihapowid^  innovations  areevfry  . 
where  taking  place;  former  prt^tTe^End  opinions  are  exploded  mere-"", 
ly,  in  fomc  inftance*  it  is -,|q?vbe  i^ired,  be^auie- ancient,  and  new 
ones  adopted  only  becaufe  a§v^.?  Xl^e^  n)ind-Qf  pl»ilofophic  bencvoT.^ 
Icnce  ardently  wifhesjibafc  iiOi /fiiVpl»U^JV<5rii««vovafio*  might  lakf^ 
place,  but  what  may  fubferv-ft  ithftgejifir|ilrtr>«?wlU  of  fociety  aod  h*jr- 
man  happinefs,  of  purereli^ODaostEcabiciencci  A  vvife  and  difcreet: 
man  will  never  difconiinneian^ftcieai  prailice  in  the  things  of  reli*- 
gion,  till  fully  convinced  ih^at  ic-i»  wrong-,  nor  begin  a  ntw  om ^ 
till  there  be  a  plenitude  of  evidence  in  its  favor.  ,  *r 

Perhaps  the  very  title  of  thefe  letters  may  difguft  our  brethren  on 
the  other  fide  of  the  queftion.  The  felf-confidcni  and  uninformed  may. 
feel  an  indignation  and  contempt  at  the  very  idea  of  fuppofmg  their 
difcriminating  praftice  and  feniimeais  not  coeval  wiih  chriftianity  it. 
felf,  or  not  fanftioned  by  apoflolic  example  and  divine  precept.  Bat 
wc  conceive  we  have  an  adequate  proof,  that  their  exc'ufion 
of  the  infant  feed  of  believers  from  the  ordinance  ofbaptifm,  is 
in  one  fcnfe  povel,  and  not  warranted  by  any  apoi.olic  precept  cr  ex,-" 
ample. 

I  cfe  the  term  Analaptifi  not  by  wty  of  reproach,  but  diflinftion  ; 
for  I  am  fenfiblcthat  the  AntipsiobapiiRj  allow  not  of  rebaptlzation, 
4iny  more  than  we  do,  where  baptifm  has  once  been  adminiftered  la 
the  right  way  and  to  the  qualified  fubjads,  according  to  their  OKyn 
ideas.  And  they  have  as  good  a  right  to  believe  and  to  praflice  n« 
they  i?o,  as  we  hsve  to  believe  and  pradice  as  I'^c  do.  No  man  hss  a 
right  to  interfere  by  com pulfion  io  the  religion  of  another.  Rcafor^ 
fair  enquiry,  and  the  oracles  of  truth,  Ciould  bear  imperial  f^vay  aad 
command  eur  firiil  obfervance. 

An  author  has  lately  been  put  into  my  handi-,  who  has  ccne  .^or- 
fvard  as  a  champion  in  the  field  of  .A.nt'px' Johapiil>.i,  and  carried  on 
his  auack  in  a  manner  fomcwhac  divcrfe  from /;ny  that  have  gcr.r  be- 
fore liim,  and  with  great  fpirit  ar.d  addrfkV  1*is  real  acd.i.rdor 
agiinftthe  right  of  the  infant  feed  of  belicv/rrro  baptifm,  and  sgaiuft 
fprtnkting  as  a  fcriptcrc  fnode  of  difpcnfirg  of  cr.^inar.ccs,  arc  excccd«rd 
by  few  er  cone.     His  confidence  is  cqea!  to  hi:,  ardor,  crd  thf;    p'j- 

lii/ 


t  r»  1 

ally  go  together.  His  art  and  management,  if  poinbic,  are  fuperier 
to  his  2cal.  His  diligence,  affiduity  and  unwearied  pains,  to  plead 
thecaufe  in  which  he  has  embarked,  challenge  the  gratitude  of  his 
brethren.  His  imagination  is  lively  ;  and  he  poffefles  the  dcfcrip- 
tire  talents  in  a  pretty  high  degree,  of  which  Se  often  avails  himfelf 
in  the  progrefs  of  his  work.  His  reading  on  thc.liiigatcd  queftion  is 
cxtenflve  ;  and  he  has,  in  the  opinion  (rf  lome/d^one  more  to  defend 
his  caufe  than  all  who  have  gone  before  him  :  ]i\\  performance,  accord- 
ingly, moft  be  reckoned  a  real  icquifition  to  the  Antipsedobaptillical 
fniertf\.  His  admirers  mud  look^^ upon  him  as  an  able  difputant,  and 
the  impartial  as  a  high- colouring  and  artful  writer.  The  author  to 
whom  I  refer,  is  the  Rev.  Mr.  Abraham  Booth,  pallor  of  a  Baptill 
church  in  Goodmanfields,  in  London, 

At  the  famd  time,  he  appears  to  pofTcfs  real  piety,  and  to  be  anxious 
to  prefcrve  chriRiaaity  from  human  mixtures,  ufelefs  ceremonies,  un« 
authorifed  rites  and  forms^  and  vain  tradition  :  in  this  he  merits  the 
cAecm  and  love  of  all  the  friends  of  pure  religion,  of  whatever  com« 
munion  they  may  be. 

His  grand  objcft  is  to  dlfprove  Paedobaptifm  by  the  conccflions  of 
the  moH  eminent  PasJobaptift  authors.  He  took  his  hint,  as  he  in- 
forms us,  from  an  able  writer  againil  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  in  a 
piece  intitled.  Popery  cenfuted  By  PapiJIs.  Mr.  Booth's  labored  per- 
f»rn1ance  of  800  pages,  in  two  refpeflable  volumes,  is  made  up  almoft 
entirely  of  quotations  from  an  infinite  number  of  learned  paedobaptifl 
authors  of  the  various  communions  of  Lutherans,  Bpifcopalians,  and 
Prefbytirians.  He  has  cited  all  their  conceffions  on  the  feveral^cM/x 
^nd  texts  which  refpeil  the  controverfy.  By  thefe  conceffions  he  ex- 
^loJes  all  the  texts  which  are  brought  to  vindicate  the  admifHon  of 
the  infant  feed  of  believers  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  ;  and  has  the 
art  and  management  to  make  the  psdobaptifls  confute  themfelves. 
And  all  along  he  has  not  failed  to  bring  in  the  verdifl  of  bis  hinejf  and 
impartial  friends  y  as  he  calls  them,  the  queikers.  They,  it  is  well 
koown,  treat  all  external  ordinances,  and  among  the  rei^,  fprinkling 
as  the  mode,  and  the  infant-feed  of  believers,  as  lawful  fubjcfls  of 
baptifm,  wi:h  reproachful  fcorn.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  fpcak  con- 
temptuouny  of  a  doflrine  or  pra'ftlce,  and  another  to  confute  it.  We 
are  all  aware  that  ihefc  honed  and  impartial  qviakers  rcjcdl  with  fove- 
ifign  contempt  all  external  ordinances  ;  and  I  believe  very  few 
chriilian  communions  would  chufc  to  abide  their  vrrdift.  We  ap- 
peal f:om  their  judgment  10  thrinfpircd  vulume,  the  only  fiandard  of 
faith  and  praclice^  and  bid  Mr.  Booth  a  cordial  welcome  to  aU  the 
tid  which  he  is  able  (o derive  to  his  caufe,  from  qj;AKiR%iM«: 

Mr. 


[    79    1 

Mr.  Bootb*«  firftobjcAis  tofettkthis  point,  that  pefitueinftitu- 
tions  arc  unalterable  but  by  the  will  ofihe  inflitutor. 

*  Thofe  arc  caUed  pofuive  inftitutions  or  precepts  which  arc  not 

*  founded  upon'auyjcaions  known  to  thofc  to  whom  they  are  given  or 

*  difcoverable  b^jjAera,    but  ^hich  arc  obferved  merely  bccaufe  feme 

*  fuperior  has  commanded  them.*  An  hoft  of  authors  is  adduced,  wha 
unanimoufly  vouch  the  fame  great  truth.  We  ail  give  oar  full  coa- 
fent,  moftcheiarfuily,  to  this  iaijportaiJt  truth.— No  confident  proicft- 
ant  can  rcfufe  to  adniit  it.       . J^  / 

The  facrament  of  baptifm  istuxfhy  our  author  confideredas  a  pofi, 
tive  inflituiion,  and  a  multitude  of  writers  quoted  to  prove  it.  Im 
THIS,  we  perfcdly  agree  with  him,  and  thcia.  So  far  there  mj,jl 
perfeft  coincidence  of  opinion. 

The  Tiixt   pofition   advanced^y burltitWis,  that  baptism  u 

PRECISELY      AND     E  SS  E  N  T  1  A  L  L  V     T  H  E     S  A  M  E     AS     PLUNGING. 

He  contends  that  this  is  the  original,  firft  and  only  proper  fejjfc 
of  the  term :  that  plunging  the  body  all  over  in  water  is  not  a  mode 
of  the  ordinance,  but  th^  very  ordinance  itfelf;  and  that  whenever 
B*7rl*^«  is  ufed  in  any  other  fecfe,  it  is  figurative  and  metaphorical. 
To  prove  this  he  quotes  all  the  authors,  lexicographers,  and  critics  to 
whom  he  had  accefs.  Here  we  moft  diflfcnt  from  the  laborious  and  in- 
defatigable Mr.  Booth.  We  contend  that  baptifm  direftly  means 
fprinkling  as  well  as  plunging.*  The  truth  is,  all  that  ever  was,  or 
can  be  proved  relative  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  laptize,  U,  that 
it  denotes  WASHING  by  the  application  of  water,  but 
whether  by  fprinkling  water  upon  or  plunging  the  fubjeft  all  over  in 
water,  muft  be  decided  by  the  ufe  which  the  infpired  writers  make  of 
the  word.—The  only  juft  way  to  learn  the  meaning  of  any  word  or 
phrafe  in  fcripture,  is  \o  find  out  how  the  facrcd  writers  ufe  it.  They 
hadoccafion  to  fpeak  of  things,  which  the  heathen  had  not,  and  ac- 
cordingly mufl  ufe  words  frequently  in  a  fenfe  different  from  the  GreeJc 
orators,  hiftorian^,  and  poets.  And  as  the^i  ufe  words  fo  'zve  arc  to 
underftand  them.  Ba^/i^w  is  perhaps  the  only  word  by  which  they 
exprefs  the  chriftian  ordinance  of  baptifm.  And  it  is  ufed  in  its  fcv- 
eral  variations,  if  my  computation  be  exaft,  and  I  believe  it  is,  ia. 
about  fixty  paffages. — And  the  numerous  sprinklings  among  the \ 
Jews,  the  Apodle,  in  fo  many  words,  calls  divers  bapti/ms  ;  if  he  un- 
derftood  himftlf  the  confequence  will  follow  that  spr  inkling  i» 
baptism.     The  word,  whenever  it  is  ufed  in  fcripture  but  for  the 

chriftian 

'^  For  fatlsfaflion  on  this  point,  tlie  reader  is  referred  to  the  firft  part  of 
the  fore^oinj  treatif?, 


[   io   3 

tHrift'sn  ordinance,  Cfrtainly  fignifies  pouring  or  sfrinklik's  j 
tnd  why  not  when  ufcd  for  ihc  ordinance  of  baplifm  ? — But  not  to 
criiicifc  here. 

Two  obfervations  will  be  fufHcient,  I  apprchenJ,  to  remove  the  pre* 
pofTeflions  u'.ich  may  be  made  upon  the  mind,  by  the  many  conccf- 
fions  of  the  moft  learned  paedobaptift  writers,  which  Mr.  Booth  has 
been  at  the  pains  to  quote  and  comment  upon. 

I.  The  firftis,  that  no  fyftem  of  do^rincs  or  pra<fllcc  is  refponCblo 
for  the  injudicious  or  unjuft  conceflions,  or  weak  defence  of  its  friends. 
Certainly  Mr.  Booth  has  cited  the  conccffions  of  fome  of  the  moil  learn- 
ed men  that  ever  lived,  that  ever  filled  the  profeffor's  chair,  or  that 
ever  adorned  the  proteftant  pulpit  :  but  it  ought  to  be  particularly 
remembered,  that  thefe  conccflions  were  made  mortly,  when  the  au- 
thors were  difcuffing  other  fubjt^s,  and  not  profeffcdly  treating  o^ 
baptifni,  and  confequently  ffight  be  inadvertant,  or  not  (o  much  upon 
their  guard  as  they  ought  to  have  been.  Mr.  Booth  has  made  it  ap- 
pear, too,  that  the  antipasdobaptift  caufc  may  have  much  faid  about 
it  and  for  it  ;  for  he  himfelf  has  travelled  through  nearly  900  pages, 
the  greater  part  of  which  conftlh  of  the  conccffions  of  the  friends  of 
infant  baptifm. 

If  a  doftrine  or  praftice  be  anfwerable  for  the  unwife  conceflions  of 
its  friends,  it  may  be  affirmed  thrjt  no  dodlrine,  or  truth,  or  duty,  caa 
be  fupporled.— For  example,  on  this  ground,  which  our  author  has 
been  plcafed  to  take,  the  fcripiures  themfelvcs  muft  be  given  up  ;  To 
muft  that  great  firll  principle  of  all  religion,  the  being  of  a  Goo. — 
And  even  moral  virtue,  the  inviolability  of  truth*  and  obligations  of 
juflice.  No  lubjefl  in  morals,  religion,  or  philofophy,  but  has  beea 
written  upon  either  weakly  or  injudicioudy.  Popery  may  be  confut- 
ed by  papill! — epifcopalianifm  by  epifcopalians-*  proteftantifm  by  pro- 
teflants — quakcrifm  by  qa:;kcrs — and  antipsdobapal'm  by  anlip xdo- 
baptills,  as  well  as  psiobaptifm  by  psdobaptifts. 

Let  a  man  of  Mr.  Booth's  reading,  ingenuity,  art,  and  vivacity  of 
imagination,  in  a  large  ccurfc  of  reading,  fet  down  the  conceflions  or 
weak  defence  of  chriftian  wri:ers  in  favor  ofchriflianity,  and  we  IhoulJ 
have  no  chriftianity  left.  Soame  Jennyns,  for  inftance,  a  writer  in  fa- 
vor of  chriftianity,  much  admired  and  celebrated,  has  conceded  fo 
much  that  we  muft,  upon  his  plan,  give  up  the  whole.  But  are  we 
to  confiderhli  conceflions  as  the  teftimony  of  an  enemy  to  the  caufc 
of  infidelity,  as  Mr.  Rooth  does  the  conceflions  of  the  pa:dobaptifti, 
unwillingly  and  reluflantly,  overpowered  with  the  pondercns  load  of 

evidence,  bearing  witnefs  to  antipacdobaptifra  and  immcrfion  ? 

We 


Wenliy  make  8  pompous  parade  of  concenjons,  and  affume  airs  of 
triumph  :  but  the  faft  is,  they  arc  no  proof  at  all,  onlcfs  it  be  of  the 
imperfcdlion  of  humaa  reafon.  Scripture  and  argument  arc  to  decide 
thcpoim  in  c^ifpUtrfC  All  the  tedious  and  prolix,  and  numerous  quo- 
tations  prefled  bp^n  as'  by  Mr.  Booth,  we  are  to  fct  down  for  nought. 
They  weigh  Ji/le  or  nothing  with  the  thinking  mind.  Their  tenden- 
cy is  rather  to  cmbarrafs  than  to  convince. 

II.  The  fecond  rehiark  is,  that  our  author  has  cnfnared  himfclf, 
and  is  anfcrtunaiely  (lain  by  hh  own  conccffions.  For  he  gcncroufly 
allows  (and  how  could  he  helpr  it)  that  many  or  the  mod  of  all  ihefc 
'great  and  learned  charadlers,  as  learned  as  ever  the  tvorld  faw,  held  as 
Urongly  to  the  validity,  fufHcicncy,  and  apoftolic  praaicfe  bf  fprink- 
ling  as  afcripturcmodc,  and  the  infant  feed  of  bclieVera  as  the  proper 
'  fubjefts  of  baptifm,  as  they  candidly  conceded  that  immerficn  is  fig- 
nified  by  the  word  BaTrlt^ey.  The  amo'ant  of  all  is  therefore  fimply 
this,  the  moft  pious,  the  moft  candid,  the  moil  critical,  the  mofl  learn- 
ed men  the  world  ever  faw,  after  a  careful  and  honed  inveftigaiion  of 
the  fcriptures  and  writingsof  the  chriftlan  fathers,  Latin  and  Greek, 
believe  that  immerfion  &tid/frink/:'ng  are  both  fcripture  ways  of  dif- 
penfing  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  : — that  the  believing  adult  is  to  be 
baptized— and  that  the  infant  feed  of  believing  parents  are  to  be 
brought  with  the  parents,  into  a  covenant  relation  to  God^  and  to  re« 
ceivc  the  token  of  the  covenant — and  that  a  very  confiderable  part  of 
the  chriftian  world  pradlife  immtrfion.  This  is  all  Mr.  Booth  has 
gained  by  his  laborious  refearches.  No  new  llrength  has  he  added  to 
the  argument  for  the  cxclufion  of  infants  and  the  neccfTity  of  immer- 
fion.  The  litigated  fubjed  Hands  where  it  did  before  ;  where  hs 
found  it.  Men  will  difpute  :  they  will  differ.  This  is  an  imperfeft 
world.  We  fee  but  in  part,  we  know  but  in  part.  Let  us  never  re- 
proach one  another  ;  but  always  live  and  move  under  the  influence 
of  chriftian  candor  and  benevolence. 

With  refpedl  to  the  hiftory  above  given  in  thefe  letters,  you  will 
iiave  the  fatisfa/^Ion  to  find  it  coincide  with  what  Mr.  Booth  has  faid, 
under  the  head  q\  Apofldk  tradition^  except  his  rcje^ing  or  rather  lay- 
ing no  weight  upon  the  tcftimony  of  Origen,  bccaafe  he  affirms  that 
his  works  have  been  bafely  corrupted.  It  is  only  ntcdrul  to  remark 
further,  that  Mr.  Booth  makes  a  mighty  noife  about  tradition,  and 
treats  with  proud  difdain  all  arguments  derived  from  {o  precari- 
ous a  fource,  precarious  in  his  view.  •'  Till  therefore,'  fays  he,  *  it 
be  fairly  proved  that  infant  baptifm  is  warranted,  either  by  precept 
or  example  in  the  New  Tedament,  we  need  not  be  much  cOncernei 
about  the  precife  time  when  it  was  introduced,   but  may  fafcly  Iheltcr 

K  cur 


[     8^-     1 

our  cajfe  under  the  wings  of  that  divine  oracle  from  the  beginning 
it  lijas  not  fo.  If  however  our  opponents  will  pledge  theniielves  to 
inform  us  wiih  precifion  when  the  Jewiili  profelyte  baptifm  commenc- 
ed, or  when  ififint  communion  firll  came  into  the  church  ;  we  will 
engage  in  our  turn  to  inform  them  with  equal  punfluality,  when  in* 
fant  baptifm  was  firil  pradifed.  The  condudl  of  our  oppofers  in  ar- 
guing for  pxdobaptifm  from  tradition,  reminds  me  of  an  old  faying, 
with  which  I  will  conclude]  this  chapter  ;  cum  leonina  non  fi'JJtceret, 
pellcm  'vulpinam  ejfd  njfuendam.^ 

Mr.  Booth,  to  ealc  and  confole  him,  may  be  told>  we  lay  no  ftrcfs 
at  all  upon  tradition  mcrtJy,  Oar  only  end  is  to  prove  from  the  tefti- 
monies  of  early  writers  what  was  the  Apoftolic  pradicc.  Let  thefe 
teftimonics  weigh  what  they  will  weigh.  We  hold  to  the  fufficicncy 
cf  fcripturc  ;  and  by  it  alone  ultimately  muft  every  controvcrfy  be  de- 
ciied.  V/e  contend  that  we  have  what  amounts  to  precept  and  exam- 
ple.— I  have  now  done  with  Mr.  Booth,  and  conceive  that  fueh  an  an- 
fwer  is  fufncient.  To  follow  him  through  all  his  tedious  quotations,— 
and  remarks  upon  them,  would  be  to  fpin  out  as  many  pages  as  ho 
did.  And  I  fhculd  here  finilh  this  letter,  already  protradlcd,  per- 
haps, to  an  immoderate  length,  were  it  not  for  gratifying  your  wifhss, 
in  ilaiing  the  number  of  the  antipsedobaptifls  in  the  United  Confed- 
eracy of  A.merica.     They  areas  follows. 

Ministers 


States 

Churches 

ordained 

licenj'ed 

Members 

New  Hampftiire 

32 

23 

»7 

1732 

MaflTachufeits 

107 

95 

3» 

7116 

Rhode  Ifland 

38 

37 

39 

3502 

ConneflicUt 

55 

44 

2  I 

5214 

Vermont 

34 

21 

15 

1610 

New  York 

57 

53 

30 

3987 

New  Jcrfey 

26 

20 

9 

22-9 

pcnnlylvania 

28 

26 

7 

1231 

Delaware 

7 

9 

I 

409 

Maryland 

12 

8 

3 

77^^ 

Virginia 

207 

IS7 

109 

20IC7 

K'-ntuclcy 

42 

40 

21 

3105 

Territory  S.  of  Ohio 

I 

3^ 

North  Carolina 

94 

81 

76 

7742 

Dcceded    rcrritory 

18 

15 

6 

8S9 

South    Carolina 

6g 

4^ 

2S 

4012 

Georgia 

42 

33 

-10 

39 

3«84 

Tela! 

86S 

^49:  >• 

Of 

[    83    3 

Of  ihefc  ihere  ire  Ministers 

Assoc.  Chh's.  ordained  licenfid  Me?./, 

Six  principle  baptiftj  i  18           26            4  ^^^9 

Open   Communioi^Do.  i  15            1^             4  jyi^ 

General  ProvifiooDo.  3  30           26            19  ip^S 

Seventh  Day  Da.  10           13             3  887 

Regular  or  Particular  Do.  30  795         632         392  58827 

Total       35  868         710        422         64975 

You  will  fee,  according  to  tkis  enumeration,  which  I  believe 
is  accurate,*  that  there  are  264  more  preachers  than  churches, 
and  not  quite  60  members  to  a  preacher.  The  fmall  number  of 
pcrfons  in  proportion  to  the  preachers,  will  ftrike  you  with  pe- 
culiar force.  The  number  of  baptifls  is  rifing  of  fixiy-four  ihou- 
fand,  and  the  whole  people  in  America  about  four  millions  in  round 
numbers.  How  furprifing  that  the  number  fcattered  all  over  the  Unit- 
ed States  fliould  not  be  greater,  about  as  many  as  would  make  fevcniy 
large  parifhes.  This  computation  is  for  the  year  1790.  I  iruft  this 
intelligence  will  be  plcafing  to  you  and  the  public.  All  the  informa- 
tion we  can  get  refpeiling  the  different  perfuafions  of  chriftians  is  in- 
terefting.  And,  indeed,  nothing  that  concerns  religion  can  be  un- 
important.    Adieu. 

Auguji  23,  1792. 

•  The  above  account  was  taken  by  Mr.  Afplond,  a  preacher  of  the  bap- 
tift  denomination,  who  travcHcd  tlirough  the  United  States  for  the  purpofe. 


-wmm 


'9    '^ 


I 


I' 


J?^ 

«•<■>*, 


